User talk:Sturmvogel 66

March contest

Congrats on an easy win! Usually Rupert and I verify, tally and hand out awards for this but I'll be away for the w/e starting this afternoon so given you're responsible for about half the damned entries, perhaps you can take my place this month... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do everybody's but mine!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sturm. All the entries are verified. I've initialised the April contest and archived the old ones. The last tasks are to tally up the results, update the scoreboard, write up the newsletter and hand out the awards. I've tallied up the results offline in a spreadsheet and will update the scoreboard, newsletter and handout the awards a bit later (I have to go offline for a bit). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, its all done now. Thanks for your help and congrats on winning. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tks guys, quick work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for their great efforts in the March 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 242 points from 34 articles. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

German WWII destroyers

Good to see somebody is finally taking care of creating those articles. I created three of them a while ago because I thought it to be rather unusual and sad that there was no articles on those resonably well know ships but its not my usual field of work. Calistemon (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how far I'll take them, but I agree that it's about time that they each had their own article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like some help, I own some of the relevant books. Manxruler (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, feel free so long as we avoid bumping heads with edit conflicts. I'm going to work on Z9 today so feel free to work on Z5 to Z8. Just let me know which ever one you're working on here and I'll do the same. I plan to get all up to speed within the 5-day DYK limit so I'll be pretty active trying to meet that goal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll probably have time tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Today's project is Z8 Bruno Heinemann.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist March 2011 backlog reduction drive

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you with this Tireless Contributor's barnstar. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your contributions to the March 2011 backlog reduction drive, by order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's barnstar. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your contributions to the March 2011 backlog reduction drive, by order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators I hereby present you with this Barnstar of Diligence. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

		March 2011 backlog reduction drive
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your placing first in the March 2011 backlog reduction drive I award you this Golden Wiki. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian ironclads

Hi, Sturmvogel. Unless I'm mistaken, you're the editor who wrote the articles about Brazilian ironclad Tamandaré and Brazilian ironclad Brasil. I added a couple of pictures to both articles. I believe that will help you bring them to Good or Featured articles, isn't? P.S.: I'll add later a picture to Brazilian ironclad Rio de Janeiro. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the pictures, but I need more information on their activities after the war to improve them further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Thank you for your reviews of RAF Northolt and RAF Uxbridge. Hopefully RAF Uxbridge will be coming along within the next couple of days. Harrison49 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look forward to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at AustralianRupert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

• 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
• 423 GA nominations passed.
• 72 GA nominations failed.
• 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hood]] ==

About the HMS Hood, the tv series Dogfights, episode "Sink the Bismarck", the narrator says "As Hood slides beneath the waves, her forward turret fires a final defiance salvo before slipping into darkness". AOCJedi (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That really isn't good enough. Find a book that says that that happened and we can discuss it. TV is all about sensationalism.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that episode also, and it does say that about Hood, but I have to agree with Sturmvogel on this one; a television series that has problems keeping its facts straight does not a reliable source make... Magus732 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

French cruiser Sully

Hello

I just translate your article French cruiser Sully. My problem is that its really diffrent than Gloire class cruiser. Diffrent armour, diffrent previous version (Gueydon vs Dupleix). Can you compare that article and try to fix diffrences? PMG (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also - what power it have? 20,500 ihp or shp? Because in text there is like this and like this. 02:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, it should have been ihp. I've fixed it now. I'll have to check my references, but I'm pretty sure that she's counted as one of the Gloire-class cruisers, even if she had a different armor scheme.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Any changes? PMG (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything I have shows her a member of the Gloire class. What's your source for believing differently?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Compare French cruiser Sully and Gloire class cruiser. Its just internal problem on en.wiki - I don`t have sources. But if Sully is a GA then its just strange for me that nobody compare that ship with class article. Difrrent Displacement, diffrent engine power, torpedo tubes, belt and deck armor. I am not talking about lenght and beam because its probably just problem with conversion. So, yeah - 99,9 % that Sully is ok if you have sources (and you have so many GA that for sure you have). But then - nobody compare it with class article? PMG (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

FTC

Hey Sturm. I was planning on closing some nominations for FTC but I don't have any time to close them right now. Can you do some of the closings for the week? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can get to them on Thursday or Friday.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		For reviewing 20 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit. Great job! –MuZemike 17:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z8 Bruno Heinemann

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank, just emphasize that no technical qualifications are needed; you don't need to know the MOS inside and out. Just read the article and see if it reads well, etc. If you do know the MOS that's a plus, but hardly necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z9 Wolfgang Zenker

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Queen Mary

Just letting you know I'm getting started on this. Btw, how's school? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you were already at work. School's ok; just want to get over with at this point. Still got about 3+ weeks to go, but no big tests or projects to complete so time's just dragging. I'm curious to see how my 14 hour days twice a week for summer semester will work out. There's a three hour break in the afternoon, so I'm hoping it won't be so bad.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you're hard-core. Are you going for a BA? - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I'll finish the AA in December and then transfer to get my BA, hopefully in only two or three semesters with all my transfer credits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yak-140Prototype.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yak-140Prototype.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Exmouth

Hi Sturm, I don't know if your forgot to save changes but HMS Exmouth is still the same and the changes from the GA review still need doing [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, I did forget to save.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Plover (M26)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chat?

Sturm, I'll be on irc for a couple of days (as Dank). Ping me please when you have a minute, or leave a note on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm don't have any chat software. But feel free to call me on Tuesday or Thursday.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll call Tuesday, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look forward to talking with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're around ... good time to call? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

21-inch torpedoes

Sorry, Sturmvogel. I got a bit confused about 21-inch torpedoes (they are of course 533mm). I was getting confused with British 18 inch torpedoes, which are of course 450mm, or 17.72 inches, in diameter. Shem (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I was getting ready to ask you what your source was as nothing I can find mentions the exact diameter of the British 21-inch torpedoes, length and most other parameters, but not diameter. I think that I've already changed them back while generally editing the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit of a prawn, actually. Not my normal style. I did a check - any I've changed have now been changed back. If you're online now you might care to wade in at Talk:Corvette. Your opinion (either way) would be welcome. Shem (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Diamond (H22)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SMS Radetzky

Hey there Sturm. Can I bring your attention to this thread for a moment? If you could help in any way, I'd be greatly appreciative ;)

All the best--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifications for US Military Aircraft

I have started a discussion on User:Ken keisel's proposal to standardise on a single source for specification of US Military aircraft here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Hi Sturmvogel66; just a quick note to ask for your help while I introduce Ken to citing his sources. He has a long history of contributing unsourced or poorly sourced material and even recently was still looking for opportunities to continue to do so. It's better that, at least for now, he errs on the side of overreferencing rather than underreferencing. He's also having trouble formatting references in their simplest form; condensing them down with the "name" attribute will be the next step.

Could I please ask for a little patience with him? I'm continuing to work with him and will ensure that everything is properly squared away at the end. Of course, I'm not asking for any special forbearance with cleaning up any actual breakages that he might cause along the way.

Properly skilled up, I think he'll be an extremely valuable contributor to the project.

Cheers! Rlandmann (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't gone to his talk page before I removed all his excess references and didn't know that you two were working together. Still, I'm surprised that he was making such simple mistakes after all the time that you'd been coaching him. But I'll back off until you can get him on the straight and narrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Action of 28 January 1945

Hi Sturmvogel, I've responded to all your comments on this article's ACR. Are you prepared to support the article's promotion to A class? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Military history project ACRs for closure

Hi, sorry to bother you. We are currently having trouble finding an uninvolved co-ordinator to close a few ACRs. If you get a free moment, could you please take a look at the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#ACRs for closure and close one if you are uninvolved? Cheers! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The bell of HMS Renown

Hi Sturmvogel 66. This is my first go at using talk, but if it works it's a better way of having a dialogue than leaving comments on edits.

Take your point about verification, and I've been trying to turn up some evidence - preferably photographic, but so far no joy. I will keep trying! It would be nice eventually to add something to such a well researched and informative page, so I hope I'm successful.

For the (as yet unproven!) record: I was a pupil at RMS Bushey from 1972 to 1975. The bell was hung on a purpose built frame on the dining hall stage with a small information panel bout the ship. From my memory of that panel I would be certain it was the Battlecruiser scrapped in 1948 as the photograph was very similar to that at the head of the Wikipedia page (and nothing like the other HMS Renown you referred me to as portrayed on its page).

The school closed in 1977 and I don't know where the bell went. The buildings have been converted to luxury flats and in 2000 any old boys who were inclided had one last chance to walk around the site. That included lunch in the dining hall, and the bell was not there.

My old craft master has become something of an unofficial historian of the school and if anyone knows the whole story, he will. I will endeavour to trace him and report back!

Meantime, thanks for the effort you've put into the Renown page - that bell always stuck in my memory, and it was great to learn a bit about the ship it came from. Tykesage (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope that you can source your memory as that would be a nice addition. Also see if you can trace the bell's fate after your school closed. Maybe the National Maritime Museum might know something? Maybe not, but it might be worthwhile to check out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66...some progress...the 2011 copy of my old school magazine arrived yesterday and included a photograph of the president of the Old Masonians' Association ringing the bell at the start of last year's Association dinner. The event was held in the Royal Masonic School for Girls' dining room. It would seem the bell was moved there after the boys' school closed. The girls' school is in Rickmansworth and I will contact them for the citation you need, and will try and get an original of the photograph to send you also. Best regards Tykesage (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll look forward to seeing the material. Please be sure to have the photographer release the photo under a Commons licence to avoid any copyright issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66. I now have the photo and the owner's consent to use it. Being a novice at this kind of thing, how do I get it to you? I don't see an attach icon anywhere....

The bell was, as I suspected, moved to the girls' school when the boys' school closed, and the picture (when you get it) shows the bell hung in the same frame as back in the 1970's together with a picture of the ship.Tykesage (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z11 Bernd von Arnim

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

MV New Flame

Hello

I am not sure what are rules about GA in en.wiki but for me MV New Flame is really outdated and it shouldn`t have GA sign. What you think? PMG (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started the process to review its status at Talk:MV New Flame/GA1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z12 Erich Giese

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Overdue

Awards applenty you may have, but this one seems to be overdue.

		The Featured Article Medal
		Awarded to Sturmvogel 66 for outstanding and repeated featured article production. Keep it up. MrMedal (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Case Blue

DYK for German destroyer Z13 Erich Koellner

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt

Hello! Your submission of German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Armoured trains of Poland

You asked two questions during the review. Regarding the second one, I believe there are next to no sources discussing it; at the very least, in my gathering of materials for this article (I wrote it first on pl wiki), I found no information on how the trains were used after capture (anyway, in '39, only one surrendered, so presumably most of the remaining wagons were destroyed in combat or upon abandonment). You also asked for "more information on combat operations". I believe that just like on pl wiki this information belongs in the subarticles on individual trains, not in the main article. I plan on eventually translating all those articles, but I don't believe that the article would benefit from doubling or tripling in size which would occur when we add the detailed info on the 2-3 weeks operations of all 10+ trains in '39. I am of course open to further discussion, which I'd strongly suggest should take place on Talk:Armoured trains of Poland (and feel free to copy this message of mine there). Thanks for your review, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Faa di Bruno 1917 bis.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Faa di Bruno 1917 bis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ring ring

Up for a phone call? - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, any time. I have no life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just tried with the number I have, "I'm sorry, this mail box has not been set up by the subscriber". It worked before. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try it again, my roomie forgot to plug the phone back in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Zrínyi

Hey Sturm. Even though this ACR has ended, mind replying to my responses to the issues that you raised so I can fix the ones that are still left over and re-nominate it at a later time? To be honest, I was not ready to take this to ACR when Buggie nominated it but I hope that this failed ACR will provide a stepping stone to a future successful one.--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 01:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You dealt with most of the issues that I raised. I'll have to take a look and see what you didn't get to or didn't understand what I meant. I hope that Buggie takes a look because there was a lot of style-type issues that I raised that probably apply to other articles that y'all have done together. It would be smart to take care of these sorts of things before your next ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and don't worry, I'll take your advice. When I get around to nominating the other ships for an ACR, I'll comb through them for the same issues that were brought up on this one. Hopefully Buggie will do the same.--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for CSS Missouri

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your outstanding work on USS New Ironsides, HMS Queen Mary and Lockheed D-21, all of which were promoted to A-Class between March and May 2011. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A question regarding notes

Hey Sturm. Would it be acceptable if I were to delete the first note from the SMS Zrinyi article? While it is technically true, one could argue that I used original research in adding it is as the connection that it reveals, it not mentioned in any books that I've come across. Furthermore, the note technically does not serve any real purpose. It is established that the ship is a pre-Dreadnought BB. And it is also established that the ship was launched in 1910....--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it, but it's not incorrect. You should also probably delete the bit about the last class of pre-dreadnoughts built as that's best suited for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Warship

Hey Sturm, I stumbled across this and I was wondering two things: how similar is the Argentine naval buildup article to this copy online (it's in the 2002-03 edition, and I'd rather not pay $95 for it!), and is there anything important in the 2006 edition about Almirante Latorre? Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, you're in luck; I've got both volumes. Lemme check how the online article compares to the one in the 2002-03 volume tomorrow. The '06 article just mentions that Vickers had plans to rearm the ship with 4-inch DP guns, but nothing became of the plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good, I looked online and got scared before I remembered that you had some. Thanks very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, is there anything in Scheina or anywhere else about Chilean efforts to repurchase Eagle/Amirante Latorre after the end of the war?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I used : Brown, David. "HMS Eagle." In Profile Warship, edited by Antony Preston, 249–272. Windsor, United Kingdom: Profile Publishing, 1973. ISSN 1754-4459. OCLC 249286023. in Almirante Latorre-class battleship. He had quite a bit on it. Somervell has some too. I think I found Brown online, but I don't know where I saved it. I have to run to work but I'll try to find it tonight. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got Brown, but I was hoping for more from the Chilean side. Can you send me the Somervell article? I have limited access to JSTOR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Chilean Navy's (former) site has basically nothing besides what the ship was going to be named before "Almirante Cochrane". Schenia has virtually nothing aside from dates. This looks like it could have a lot (search for "acorazados" = battleship in Spanish), but translating it is going to be slow given that I don't read Spanish and can't copy/paste into Google. :-) Somervell has a bit on the tussle over Chile's acquisition of Latorre and attempt to have Britain convert Cochrane back into a battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't really see much of use in Somervell, but I've compared the online article to the published one and they're pretty much identical. Minor variations in wording and such, but the main points seem to be the same. The online one might be an earlier draft, but I can scan the latter one for you if you'd like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he doesn't have anything besides 1920 stuff. It'd be great if you could scan it so I can cite correct page numbers from a published source, but don't rush to do it. :-) Lecen just told me he bought a book on the dreadnought arms race, so when he's finished reading it I'll ask him if it has anything on Cochrane. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and my book shelf just reminded me that we need to get Arizona to FA by the 70th anniversary! Lemme know when you want to get going (assuming you still want to collaborate on it). I have Stillwell and can get another book or two if we need. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Once I finish up with Eagle, I'll get started on the technical stuff, but you'll have most of the operational history on your plate as I have only DANFS for her activities before the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just ordered Hone's Battle Line: The United States Navy 1919-1939 and Jones' U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I so with Stillwell and The New York Times I think we'll have enough on that end. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad news: Hone has literally nothing. Good news: images from NARA! See Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Requests#USS_Arizona. I'm going to work on cropping/rotating/converting them to jpg tomorrow or asap. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've stuck a link to here from a 1942 edition of Flight, which may satisfy the requirement for a source needed for a non-free rationale, although it may need some tweaking.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Il-18aerial.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Il-18aerial.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinic

Jason, This is the ship I was talking about: "Originally commissioned by the East German People's Navy as the Rudolf Eglehofer, the Hiddensee (corvette) is a Tarantul I class corvette built at the Petrovsky Shipyard, located near the Soviet city of St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad)." fro the Battleship Cove website. Excellent mtg, glad we met. Cheers. LanceBarber (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It was a good meeting. I'll have to let you know next time I'm working on US post-war aircraft as you might have something useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dupuy de Lome

Am very glad to see you setting about this ship! I have been wondering for months about how she fits into the development of armoured cruisers more generally. Something doesn't add up for me - she is often hailed as a great breakthrough, but she was obsolete very soon after launch and differs more or less completely from the armoured cruisers of the late 1890s. I hope the work you're doing sheds some light on my conundrum ;-) The Land (talk)

I wish I had more on the ship's design rationale, but my source only has a few scant paragraphs so it will be more descriptive than I'd prefer. Don't think many of the earlier belted cruisers, with the exception of some of the Russian ships, had turrets, which may well be her main claim to fame. Still got a couple of more generic cruiser references to look through in the (probably vain) hope that they describe her design rationale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

To show appreciation for your work on Dupuy de Lome, and also to test the Wikilove feature. :-D The Land (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Ambassadorship

Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldenburg

Hey Sturm, I wondered if you might be able to check the German edition of Groner on SMS Oldenburg (1884) for me - the English version gives a range of the main battery as "5700–8800m", which doesn't make sense. I'm hoping you might be able to answer the question as you did with the "layers/strakes" translation error. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good # in the English edition. It correlates with the 26cm gun used in the Sachsen-class ships. I guess that Krupp took a while to develop gun technology.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist task force expansion

Hi Sturm :) Per this discussion the South American task force, of which you are a coordinator, has now been expanded to cover Central America as well. The new task force can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Central and South American military history task force. I've left a redirect at the old title but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia

Hi, just a note that, unless I'm missing something, your hook for Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia is incomplete. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did rather skip that part, didn't I? Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, mate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on Blockhaus d'Éperlecques

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques; I've actioned the various issues that you raised. Please take another look to see if that satisfies your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further feedback! I think I've sorted out all the points you raised... Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Russian ironclad Pervenets and Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia certified "Good Articles"! Your work is much appreciated. Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

DYK for Russian ironclad Pervenets

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• You asked a couple of weeks ago about an alleged ramming of HMS Warspite by the Pervenets on my usertalk page; note my reply in the same place. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian ironclad Ne Tron Menia

EncycloPetey (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

HMS Endymion

I've recently expanded the HMS Endymion (1865) article, which you created. You gave "Various British Screw Frigates". Warship International. V (4). Toledo, OH: Naval Records Club: 323. 1968. as one of the sources. Do you still have that journal, and is there anything in it which could be used to further expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!

Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more and help suggest ways of moving forward. Look forward to some MILHIST input. :-) The Land (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know/Suicide_by_hanging#Suicide_by_hanging

Seriously? Seriously? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my obvious conflict of interest here but...seriously? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How callous do you want me to sound?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please, be my guest. I didn't mean to come across as so rude earlier so my apologies again. I was just rather shocked, and I honestly can't understand for the life of me so any explanation would be appreciated. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Type 79 radar

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 6, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 6, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Lion was a battlecruiser of the Royal Navy, the lead ship of her class. Lion served as the flagship of the Grand Fleet's battlecruisers throughout World War I, except when she was being refitted or under repair. She sank the German light cruiser Köln during the Battle of Heligoland Bight and served as Vice Admiral Beatty's flagship at the battles of Dogger Bank and Jutland. She was so badly damaged at the first of these battles that she had to be towed back to port by the battlecruiser Indomitable and was under repair for more than two months. During the Battle of Jutland she suffered a serious propellant fire that could have destroyed the ship if not for the bravery of Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey, who posthumously received the Victoria Cross for having ordered the magazine flooded. She spent the rest of the war on uneventful patrols in the North Sea. She was put into reserve in 1920 and sold for scrap in 1924 under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. (more...)

Good Article promotion

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making HMS Vanguard (23) a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Type 281 radar

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Type 281 radar

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mig i-211.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mig i-211.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at WT:MIL.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

15 cm naval gun

Thanks for your reply here (I've just seen it). My question was prompted by these edits; which I reverted, but it got me thinking.
The distinction between the nominal and the actual calibre is a good one; sources for ships etc. generally use the nominal calibre, but a reference to the actual calibre makes sense on the gun article.
I’ve taken the liberty of clarifying it on the gun page (here) in case it comes up again (if you are OK with that, I’ll fix the other 15cm gun pages the same way). Xyl 54 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW the Calibre page notes the distinction between the bore diameter (across the lands) and the groove diameter; is that what the difference is here? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I doubt it because the 20cm gun has a bore diameter of 20.3 cm, which matches the treaty standard of 8 inches. Groove diameter is not often referenced so I can't say one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Class A Review for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment

I have responded to your comment here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional edits have been made to follow MOS, please rereview.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional edits have been made, including de-bundling, please rerereview. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional edit made per request. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your work in naval history has been consistently fantastic. Thanks for bringing so many article up to GA status, and improving many more in other ways. – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?

On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IL-22

Nice job there, but it leads me to two connections, the Heinkel He 343 and Ilyushin Il-28. Would you mind looking at each of these articles; I do not have the resources at hand to work on them. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. I have the resources to work on both, but the Il-28 article really needs a whole lot of work that I'm not sure that I feel up to tackling at the moment. I might just fill out the development history section and leave the rest for later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Conways

Hey Sturm, would you be able to scan me the page on the pocket battleships sometime? I imagine it'll be of at least some use in writing those articles. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you really ought to get the Koop and Schmolke book on them for all the real poop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, OSU has a copy of it (it's over $150 on Amazon) but I won't be on campus for about a month (and thus won't be able to check anything out until then). I guess I could stop in and use it in the library computer lab, I wouldn't need to check it out to do that. Parsecboy (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GA in pl.wiki

Hello

I want thank you for your work on French cruiser Sully. I translated them to pl.wiki and get GA. This is probably best source of information in Polish language.

Thanks for your work.

PMG (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your contribution to the articles about Russian Navy ships. DonaldDuck (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the August 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 75 points from 12 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hood (51)

If you've responded to WSC's points in the FAC, you might want to ask him to have another look. - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks for the reminder; I hadn't even noticed his latest comment. I've also just asked Nikkimaria to take another look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Crusader (H60)

Gday. There seems to be an inconsistency in HMS Crusader (H60). In particular in the lead it says "She served as a convoy escort during the battle of the Atlantic until sunk by the German submarine U-91 on 14 September 1942," however in the info box it says: "Fate: Sunk by U-210, 14 September 1942." I'm not sure which is right so I'm hoping you might be able to fix this. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Belfast (C35)

This one is past its sell-by date, and I can't tell if he's dealt with your concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, Lemme look at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for C and D class destroyer

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Could you venture a guess as to the type of German gun photographed at Fort Napoleon, Ostend? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

28 cm SKL/35 guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good guess! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

They were not SKLs though. All sources that give a model say 1887. The wheel mounts surely look like [2] Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One of my sources says SKL/35, another says 1887. What is certain that the gun in the other photo and the one in photo on the Fort Napoleon page are not the same. Look at the barrels; the one at Ft. Napoleon is smooth, but the other one is built up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw here that another source in Dutch said SK, but I'm not very confident that it is correct. The barrels seem to have had 4 hoops if you look carefully at [3]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

[4] p. 166: "The Belgian coast defense system included the following major caliber armament : five 38-cm guns, four 30.5-cm guns, twenty 28-cm guns, in addition to the older and less effective guns of Battery Hindenburg and some 28-cm mortars." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but the barrels don't look anything alike as that second photo that you reference shows very small shoulders of the hoops and matches the one on the Ft. Napoleon page much better. My source for the 1887 reference is a 1920 US Army report and is probably the most accurate reference available, barring German archival records.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Russian Krupp barrel has a different hoop disposition. Russia was the first big customer of Krupp naval guns (bigger than Germany at first), ordering 76 pieces of 28-cm (L/25 it seems) in 1869. Krupp designed and started to produce its own carriages for big naval guns at this time. I have this from the Krupp official history 1812-1912 p. 127. I found a conference paper saying something about the H battery as well, and added it to the article with a quote. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I discovered that the 1997 (English) conference paper was written by Aleks A. M. Deseyne, the same author whose writing was used in the luftschutzbunker-forum.de to claim the guns were SK, but based on Deseyne earlier writing in Dutch. Either Deseyne corrected himself in the mean time, or (far more likely) the forum poster read him wrong. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Kadir and Reshadieh class

Hey Sturm. A while ago I got back to work on Ottoman battleship Abdul Kadir and Reshadieh class battleship. Could you look them over for me and tell me what they have left till they would pass a GAN? Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to leave you hanging, but I'll look them over this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing. I'm still trying to read through Jappalang's peer review, kind of confusing for me, so I'm in no hurry. Buggie111 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruiser as small battleship

My point was that those ships were smaller than the other battleships that were their contemporaries: Lion was heavier and longer than Iron Duke, Derfflinger was heavier and longer than Konig. The longest ships on both sides at Jutland were battlecruisers. By the thirties, all battleships were fast by WWI standards, so the speed distinction no longer seemed to apply, no battlecruiser was as fast as Iowa. By the thirties it seems that the term battlecruiser was reserved for battleships a little smaller than most others of the period. In other words, my point is valid. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Sovereign

Hey Sturm, I've been trying to cobble together a half-way decent article on HMS Royal Sovereign (05), and I wondered if you have any material that might be useful. If not, no worries either. I'm probably running into the same problem you had with some of the battlecruisers over lack of information for late-WWI and post-war activities. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I've got tons of technical stuff on her and her sisters; all the design history stuff that you could ever want. Operational stuff, not so much, other than whatever Rohwer will show. There's a relatively new book out by Peter C. Smith on the class that hopefully fills in the gap you mentioned, so try to ILL it. If you'd like, we can collaborate and I'll do the technical stuff. Just let me know whenever you want to get started. I can use a break, I'm getting a little burnt out on British destroyers (only six more to go to finish off the G and H destroyer topic!). I've got a history of Rodney, though, that I need to use before I have to return it, so that's a little higher up the queue. And now that I think about it, we should probably work together on Breslau as well as I've got some good stuff on her service with the Turks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you've already added a lot of the technical stuff. That's fine, there's some refit/modernization stuff that I can add.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Rohwer's a little light (and limited to WWII, unfortunately, which I'm not having that much trouble with), especially because some of it's not viewable. As to Smith, the closest one to me is at the University of Chicago - I don't know how far my ILL will reach, though I imagine that it should have useful information (it's 200+ pages long on just these five ships). I suppose the least I can do is try to request it and see what happens. My main concern is time on my part, given that grad school is starting in a week. I'm sort of expecting to be largely done with article writing at that point, but we'll see how things turn out. I could certainly help you out with Breslau if you wanted to work on that sometime in the short term. And nice work powering through all those destroyers, by the way. And yeah, I got enough of the basic technical stuff from Conway's. Parsecboy (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your ILL reach is likely better than mine as you hopefully don't have to pay to borrow from Chicago and the Ivies like I do now. God, I really miss Regenstein (Chicago's) Library! It's a pity that I didn't start editing until after I left town. So it then really becomes a time issue for you. I suspect that you'll still be able to edit, but maybe only an article or so a week, once school starts. Request it and see how things go, I can probably fill in any holes that you've left as I've got my own copy of Rohwer and I can probably request Smith, although I'm not paying $25.00 to borrow it if it's only at Chicago and the Ivies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got McLaughlin, which has a little. Buggie111 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got it as well so that bit will be covered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've requested it through OSU's ILL - we'll see what happens. The last time I did that, they just bought the book outright as it was relatively new - maybe they'll do the same here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The book finally came in today, I should probably have some time this weekend to do some work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I've still got some modernization stuff to add.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my request without reviewing it?

Here. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It had already been assessed as B class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see another editor had already done a review. Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for exemplary work on HMS Hood (51), HMS New Zealand (1911)‎ and HMS Eagle (1918), all of which were promoted to A-Class between May and September 2011. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Titan's cross nomination

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider a different approach

Dear Sturmvogel 66, I noticed your many template messages left for Ken keisel. Can I suggest a different approach. How about a human looking message that some of his additions appear to violate policy and then you can keep an ongoing list underneath it? There is no need to add a template for every example you find. Doing so appears a bit hostile. I'm sure you don't mean to appear hostile, which is why I'm asking you to consider a more personable approach. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've run into Ken before and it hasn't been pretty. I was checking out the Yak articles before beginning work on them and noticed the copyright issues. I'll not start a WP:CCI on him as I wasn't checking up on him specifically, but you might want to persuade him to rewrite any other instances where he's borrowed a bit too liberally before somebody else notices and does start an investigation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you consider the information to be accurate wouldn't the best approach be to simply re-edit it until you no longer consider it a violation? I don't see how it benefits the article to delete 50% of its information simply because of how it is worded. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I plan on rewriting the articles anyways so no information will be lost, but the point is that you shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff at all. A lot of time it's easier to write from scratch than to rewrite existing text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but deleting all the information from one source, and the source, gives the impression that you are challenging the validity of that source. You deleted nearly 50% of the content of these articles, and what is left is not terribly coherent because of the omissions. Why not make minor changes to maintain the integrity of the articles until you do your re-write? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I deleted all references to Gunston, so I wasn't challenging the source. I agree that the remaining text isn't terribly coherent, but that's because I was drawn to check on the other early Yak fighter articles in case they had the same problems. It might have been better to work on one at a time, deleting the text and rewriting it entirely, but I thought it was better to delete all the copy vios that I found first. I'll rewrite the articles in the next couple of weeks as I find time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I will work on them a bit to keep the information intact. I don't want them to sit in this condition for long. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, just be sure to put things into your own words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I had changed the original text quite a bit, but some things, likes modifications to the airframe, are hard to modify without becoming awkward. There's only so many ways to describe adding a nose wheel. I think you get my meaning. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I know; I've struggled with that problem quite a bit myself. Sometimes the simplest thing to do is not to go into as much detail as the book does. Forex, Green and Gordon give a detailed description of the nosewheel of the Yak-17, IIRC, and how it was housed. I'd just say that it was not steerable, lacked brakes and was housed in an external fairing because there wasn't any room under the engine. Remember that you just can't change the order of the clauses in the original text; you have to limit your use of the original text to only a couple of words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK review

Hi Sturmvogel 66, just letting you know that I provided an alternative hook as requested. --Elekhh (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.

If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done Storm. BTW, can you check back at the Su-33 ACR as I believe Phil has actioned your tags in the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MilHist IRC

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at [5]. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a coord, I'd like to ask you to join to make yourself available to others who need help. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley, Ian Rose and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the September 2011 Military history WikiProject Contest with 70 points from 12 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx, Buggie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Delight

It's passed. Buggie111 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Sturmvogel 66 for helping to promote HMS Delight (H38) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Corrected year of publication

Hi. I changed that because books.google gives 1991; Amazon, too. I see worldcat says 1990... Anyway it seemed reasonable that it was published the year-after, looking back on 1990.  —Portuguese Man o' War 00:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad guess, but I have a copy. Warship is generally published the year given in the title, unlike many other books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll try and not do that again. fyi, I was wondering about 'volume' being 1990; seemed more a part of the title... The bolding of the volume is what caught my eye.  —Portuguese Man o' War 00:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I treat it as a serial since it's an annual publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Will leave that sort of thing be, then...

Could you look at something else? It's related to the NavWeaps cites: User talk:Gadget850#sfn/sfnRef and square brackets. I asked Gadget850 about these and part of what he just said relates to the work/publisher, so I'd like your input. The 2008a, 2008b, c, d approach he's suggesting is certainly doable, although I don't know if a date will always be available. Or if DiGiulian is always the author. Would you prefer these by NavWeaps Year, DiGiulian Year (both with a,b,c,d...) or as NAVWEAPS Long-Title Possibly-with-Square-Brackets? I'll go with whatever as long as it works. I see the approach I was pursuing as clearest. I'm going to reply there, next, referring to here.  —Portuguese Man o' War 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

↑↑↑ and reply on my talk.  —Portuguese Man o' War 06:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

I really don't know why I'm the only support so far; as much as you've done on other people's articles, I would think at least one person would stop by to review. I'm open to suggestions on the best way to ask around for help. FWIW, I think I'm seeing a pattern: articles that have been at A-class recently are more likely to get reviewed at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Butting in, I think you may have a point there, Dan. Anyway, haven't reviewed a ship for a while, so it's on my list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I was getting around to thinking about sending a reminder out to the usual suspects, but, as usual, hadn't gotten around to it yet. Still gotta work on my responses to Akagi comments as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

K. Keisel

I noticed your question on Sarek's Talk page. I had the same idea a few months ago - see this Talk page excerpt - but little came of it, I'm sure because of the press of other matters. Perhaps you would find some of my earlier (if limited) effort to be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Crap, I'll try to find some time to poke through his contributions this week and see what's to be seen. I'll probably stick mostly to the aviation stuff as that's my area of expertise. If you want to look through the other ones, feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was steering clear of aviation b/c I don't know anything about it, so that works for me. Otherwise though my skills in this area are pretty rudimentary and what I've already found may be as much as I do. More broadly, the most disturbing aspect is what seems to be a completely cavalier attitude toward the whole subject - either "I rejiggered it a little so it's fine", or, "if someone thinks it's a problem still, they can fix it." JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI apropos of this: ANI and CCI. JohnInDC (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey Sturmvogel 66, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

years are optional. You might try setting your editbox prefs to larger than 25 rows, too. Bye.

convenience link.

 —Portuguese Man o' War 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My prefs are set for 40 rows, thank you very much. Vertical refs are still far too annoying because I can't see all of them at once.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making HMS Princess Royal (1911) a Featured Article! Please accept this History Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks Storm for helping to promote Mikoyan-Gurevich I-211 to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Royal Naval Air Squadrons

Sturmvogel, I reverted your edit at Template:Royal Naval Air Squadrons, since 824 squadron is already in the template as an active squadron. Please let me know if I did a wrong thing! Shem (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd missed that the squadrons were segregated by active/inactive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Colorized N3 Battleship.png

Thanks for uploading File:Colorized N3 Battleship.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be alright now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting frustrated as that's not one of the menu choices and I'd forgotten about adding it afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem - at this point, I don't even bother with the drop down menu, I just go to an image I already uploaded and copy the templates. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just passed C and D class destroyer for GA, but I did leave one comment on the review page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll check it out. I'm just settling in to review your list of German ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/If Day/archive1

I think the delegates are looking for image reviews to start off with a bold Image review. Also ... even though a single-word "support" from you means a lot, I'm concerned that others will see that and be tempted to do the same, which won't in general help much. If you don't want to offer any specific comments, it would help to say something like: "Support. I read this for A-class and didn't get around to supporting, but it looks like the comments above have covered everything." That is, it would help a lot to have some kind of acknowledgment that you're familiar with the article or with the FAC comments or both. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Larger GT/FTs subsuming smaller ones

I'll take off the topics that were merged in on the armored cruisers one, that somehow slipped by me on promotion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: HMAS Australia (1911)

This is a note to let the main editors of HMAS Australia (1911) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 25, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

HMAS Australia was one of three Indefatigable-class battlecruisers built for the defence of the British Empire. She was launched in 1911, and commissioned as flagship of the fledgling Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 1913. At the start of World War I, Australia was tasked with finding and destroying the German East Asia Squadron, which was prompted to withdraw from the Pacific by the battlecruiser's presence. Repeated diversions to support the capture of German colonies in New Guinea and Samoa, as well as an overcautious Admiralty, prevented the battlecruiser from engaging the German squadron before the latter's destruction. Australia was then assigned to North Sea operations, which consisted primarily of patrols and exercises, until the end of the war. During this time, Australia was involved in early attempts at naval aviation, and 11 of her personnel participated in the Zeebrugge Raid. Post-war budget cuts saw Australia's role downgraded to a training ship before she was placed in reserve in 1921. The disarmament provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty required the destruction of Australia as part of Britain's commitment, and she was scuttled off Sydney Heads in 1924. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the bot was a day late and a dollar short... ;) (congrats, BTW!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know until it was semi-protected a few hours before its appearance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A thought

Hey Sturm, I just reviewed HMS Comet (H00) for GA, and in passing, checked the dab page at HMS Comet. Turns out the link from the dab to the article was wrong (it had a year dab, not the pennant) - you might want to check the dabs as you write the articles to make sure they're pointing to the right place. I fixed this one, but it will probably crop up elsewhere so we should keep an eye on it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that there was a big move a while back to dab RN WWII ships by pennant # rather than by year, which is stupid because the pennant #s changed several times during the war. But it seems that there are still some old pointers floating about. I'll have to try and remember to check them out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Empress

Apologies for the edit conflict, it was unintentional. There's always the {{inuse}} for making a series of edits. Had I seen that message displayed, I've have kept clear. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I should have used it, but it's such a obscure little ship that I didn't even think about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the words "or worked upon" on my user page, you'll see my "watchlist" in action. That's how I spotted that a change had been made to the article. I had a quick look and spotted the year had been left out, so naturally made the relevant edit. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian BB list

Regarding this, I"d like to tell you that I"ve been working on and off at List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union, which should encompass both pre-dread and dreadnoughts. I myself don't think a split (like the RN lists) is necesary, but I'd like to hear you ideas. (Note:My assumption of your intent to continue work on the dread list is solely off of you adding your name to it, if it's just to claim content creation, then disregard the above.) Buggie111 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Perseus (R51)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Argus (I49)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Duncan (D99)‎‎

The article HMS Duncan (D99)‎‎ you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Duncan (D99)‎‎ for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself?

DYK for HMS Raven II

Thanks for supporting the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the October 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 137 points from 27 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Breslau

Hey Sturm, just thought I'd let you know that I've started some work on SMS Breslau. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, great. I'll let you do your thing and take a look at it tomorrow. I still need to scan that ironclad stuff for you; I'll get to that this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just about done on my end. Have at it. FWIW, the article should qualify for DYK if you want to nominate it after you're done. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Anne (1915)

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi

Materialscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona

Hey Sturm, long time no talk. Hope life is treating you well. I left a message at WT:MILHIST#USS Arizona (BB-39), but I wanted to apologize personally for not finishing this article. I always meant to get back to it when I had more time, but never did. I put up a request for assistance on the Milhist talk page and I hope we'll get something out of it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I never really put a whole lot of work into it; just couldn't muster much enthusiasm my own self. I saw your note and maybe I'll request Stillwell again and try to finish it off with whoever else is interested. I hope that you've been able to put some more time into your South American dreadnought race article as Eagle was finally promoted and I can finish off Agincourt almost anytime. You've gotten most of the other articles to FA already and it would be very cool to skip GTC and go straight to FTC. You may have noticed that I've added a bunch of technical data to the Lexington-class BC article; once I get Friedman's cruiser book I'll see what else I need to add as there's a very good article on the planning for the ships in the latest Warship. Then I plan to submit it for FAC as a co-nom with you and whoever else worked on it if y'all are agreeable. I find that I'm pretty psyched by how close we are to the BC FTC and am focusing a fair amount of effort working to bring those individual articles up to FAC. Given the speed of the whole FAC process, I'm not in any hurry as it will be six months or more to finish off all the FACs, but I'm not letting any moss gather either. We're gonna need to have that discussion about if the Alaska's count as BCs or not well before then for planning purposes. Maybe over the holidays when you're not so busy. RL sucks sometimes, I know, so don't sweat things over here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, motivation was the other half of my problem. Stillwell is awesome for his appendix with the ship's chronology, but realistically speaking Arizona didn't do much of note from 1918 to the 1930s. I'm waiting for User:Lecen to add info from a Portuguese-language book to the dreadnought race article, but it's otherwise ready for FAC whenever. I will add the info I have on Agincourt's Brazilian history either during Thankstaking or after this semester ends. The reason I never took the Lexington article to FAC was that I was never able to get ahold of Friedman, so I'm perfectly happy with that.

The Alaska should probably not count as BCs. There's an argument advanced by certain historians that they should be classified as such, but it's not a clear dominant narrative, and it's clear the US Navy didn't want them classified as BCs. Also, that's much easier to argue at FTC. To go the other way, we'd need a historical work that focuses on the argument and concludes that they are BCs, and AFAIK there is none. (which reminds me that I should get around to expanding that historiography section in the Alaska class article sometime) Anyway, gotta run again. I'll keep check back here probably tomorrow. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand about the motivation issues, that's why I like the topic boxes as they help keep me focused. If you want a laugh, check out my Sandbox for all of the topics that I'm either working on, planning to work on, or dreaming about. I'm glad to hear that the dreadnought race article is pretty well done; I'll move Agincourt up in my to-be-finished queue so that doesn't delay things. I understand your reasoning about the Alaska's, but my issue is with consistency. Most of the other cruiser-killer designs are counted as OMT ships and/or are included in existing GTs. Many of them also weren't called BCs by the owning navies, like the B-65s and the Stalingrad class. At any rate we can discuss this at length later when we all have some time; I just wanted to give you an idea of my thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Geez, talk about some long-term planning! I love it! The dreadnought race article could probably pass FAC as it is, but I'm hoping Lecen will have a few nuggets to add.

I suppose we could also make an argument that there is a section on the cruiser killers in the battlecruiser article. I think it'll be tough, and we'll definitely have to talk The Land (talk · contribs) into it, but it might be doable. I guess my thinking is I don't really have a strong opinion either way. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Ark Royal (1914)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Harvester (H19)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could stub

The remaining carierrs, the template looks like it needs more blue links. See this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the template and redirects are fine as is. The template lists all the ships that were begun, although the three that weren't finished are best covered in the class article, not as independent stubs. But thanks for pointing that out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Empress (1914)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK review note

DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Schorpioen

Hi, I've just uploaded two photos of Schorpioen to Commons: [6] [7]. Unfortunately the restoration of the ship was pretty half-hearted and little remains of her interior - most of which is occupied by a cafe and a dull museum gallery. I'm in the process of uploading lots of photos of the Dutch Naval Museum now. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona FAC

Hi Sturmvogel, I'm afraid that I've just posted an 'oppose' review for this article as I think it needs quite a bit more work to reach FA class. The content is basically fine, but it's much less polished than your other FAs. I hope that the comments don't come across as being too harsh. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dank is still copyediting it, so I'd appreciate it if you could point out specific issues on the FAC page so they can be addressed. Nevermind, I see that you already did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Rules about ships

Hello

On pl.wiki we want to put some rules what ships are ok to be in wiki (battleships etc.) and what are not ok (unnamed barge, very small yachts). Is there on en.wiki some rules about that? Or you know other wiki, where are such rules?

PMG (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there. If I remember correctly, the rule of thumb is that any ship of over 100 feet (30 m) in length, or any military- or government-owned or operated vessel regardless of length, is considered to be notable unless a lack of reliable sources indicates otherwise. Of course many civilian vessels of less than 100 feet (30 m) length are notable per the general notabilty guideline, and these are, of course, included as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for help. As you can see there are diffrent ways. PMG (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on IWM ...

... their links to archival catalogue references have never been very stable, and they don't seem to have improved with the new site layout. The link to Napier's papers in the Courageous article goes straight to the main search page. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just caught that and updated it to the current address. Maybe it will stabilize at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they work now, which is very handy. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian cruiser Admiral Makarov (1906)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Breslau

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard ACR

Hello. This article looks very good to me, I've left a few comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (23). Please have a look when you get a change. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd already caught your comments on my watchlist. I've responded on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona, South America, and related dealios

Hey Sturm. I should be able to help a bit with Arizona on Wednesday and Thursday, after both my papers are due, but I have another due Monday, so the weekend is questionable. The FAC isn't a trainwreck yet, so I hope we can push it through. You've done an enormous amount of work on this, and I want to thank you again for that. Second, South American dreadnought race is FACable at anytime now. I'll probably put it through over winter break, which is also when I'll add info from my sources to Agincourt. She's probably GANable right now, as you have all of the general information already. Hope your Thanksgiving was filled with turkey and family (and you didn't come down with the flu, like me!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome and I think that we can push it through with comments from a few more reviewers as we've already had source and citation reviewers. I'll see if I can round up a few more. See if you can address Nick's comments and the couple that Dank left. Agincourt is already nom'ed as I really just needed to update it with info from Topliss, so you can submit the FTC anytime once it gets promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do asap. I think I have one more source at home that I'll double check. Would you like me to wait for the FTC until Agincourt is a FA? (Cla liked to do that, so I thought I'd give you the option) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure that I can get Agincourt to FA as her activities during the war aren't well documented. This is a problem common for most of the RN dreadnoughts which will complicate our efforts for the grand dreadnought FTC. I haven't checked to see, but I don't think that you need Agincourt to be at FA to qualify for your FTC, so there's really no point in waiting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

250th GA

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		250 GAs represents an intense effort to improve the availability of shared knowledge. Keep it up! TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Sturm! This is really impressive! Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm rather pleased myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Helgoland (1912)

Orlady (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Blanche (H47)

Orlady (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Russian cruiser Bayan (1907)

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help to Make SMS Weißenburg Featured in Turkish Wikipedia

Hello Sturmvogel. I've translated SMS Weißenburg to Turkish (as Turgut Reis), it is about to be a featured article there. I am having a difficulty finding a good source about it's dismounted cannons. I found that one of the ship's 28cm twin turrets was dismounted from the ship and put into a fortification in Dardanelles in Güzelyalı, Çanakkale in probably June 24, 1936. Here is a picture of the turret in present day Çanakkale. It states that the guns were taken from the ship and mounted there in 1936, and the first commander of the battery was Önyüzbaşı (Lieutenant) Selami Arıkan. That battery was called as "Turgut Reis bataryası", "Üçüncü Batarya (3rd Battery)" and "Beşyüzaltmışbeşinci batarya (565th battery)".

Since you have a great knowledge about battleships, could you please help me to find a solid source stating this event? I could not find any Turkish or English sources online. Thanks in advance.

PS: Great article on SMS Goeben too, I've translated it to Turkish and it is a feature article nominee, it'll be featured in tr.wiki very soon. I'll soon start to work on SMS Breslau, it'll be a GA in tr.wiki.--Khutuck (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could help you more, but I had absolutely no idea that any of Torgut Reis' turrets were dismounted and used as coastal artillery. The best source in English for the Ottoman ships is The Ottoman Steam Navy as referenced in the Goeben and Breslau articles and it says nothing about the ship being disarmed in the mid-1930s. I'd consider that the photo would be a source for the statement, provided that the monument was erected by some official group.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkish community accepts the source, but sadly the officials that erected that monument are not known for their precise history knowledge. This site states that "Decommissioned in 1933 and turned into barrak vessel for dockyard workers." and the photo/monument says turrets were used as fixed artillery. I should leave it this way than, and hope to stumble upon some info on the matter. Thank you for the answer :) --Khutuck (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This book appears to address the issue - I don't know if you can access the book through your local library. Parsecboy (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've requested it myself through Inter-Library Loan, although I'm a little doubtful that we'll get much more than the snippet showed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll use this as a source for now, please notify me if you can get the book, I'll update the source. Thanks. --Khutuck (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

First Cruiser Squadron

Unfortunately my recent trip to London turned into a long drinking session, but as I wind my way home on the train, I've just found something in the copies of "Battle Cruiser Force War Records - Miscellaneous" from ADM 137/2134 at The National Archives. It's an order from the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet (Beatty) to the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Force (Pakenham), dated 4 August, 1917, outlining Napier's appointment as Vice-Admiral Light Cruiser Force. The key section is sec. 7, reproduced below. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Vice-Admiral Napier will remain in immediate command of the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron for the present, until such time as a Commodore may be appointed in charge of that squadron which will consist of H.M.S. "Chatham", H.M.S. "Yarmouth", H.M.S. "Birkenhead", and H.M.S. "Chester". H.M. Ships "Courageous", "Glorious" and "Furious" will then be detached from the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron and become a separate unit which will be known as the "First Cruiser Squadron" and Vice-Admiral Napier will remain in direct command of the First Cruiser Squadron in addition to retaining his appointment in administrative charge of the Light Cruiser Squadrons of the Grand Fleet.

Thanks, Simon, that's great stuff. I'll add it to the articles when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Engineering and Tech good articles

I was just following Category:Uncategorized good articles. Please correct the topic if you feel it should be something else. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand now. I think that the Gimmebot was slow in posting the article history as a "War" article and so it showed up on your radar as uncharacterized. It just did that a few minutes ago, so no problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TFAR

Not worth making a fuss at TFAR-- it's on Raul's talk page, and I'm just now starting through the rest of FAC, so I could be a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If he did it reverted me, I was going to let it lie as not worth the hassle. Thanks, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination is unlikely to be opposed on any rational basis, so I don't see any need to flout procedure in listing a sixth nomination when five are the page's maximum. As a second point, you really should have waited until an uninvolved delegate or the director promoted the nomination. I specifically did the image review at the FAC in hopes that it would help get the article promoted in time so that it could be run on the Main Page. I applaud your enthusiasm, but we do have procedures around here, and it sets a bad precedent for the future to go outside of the processes established by the community for these things. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope I didn't contribute to this kerfuffle; with all the shots being fired at FAC, it's the friendly fire that exhausts most. I'm not clear if Imzadi is now saying he thinks I have a conflict on promoting since I entered a list of prose fixes needed, but surely putting it up at TFAR while I was still working might not have been the best idea. While I'm within my remit to leave comments before promoting, I wasn't certain I would finish promoting tonight, but got to yours first because of the pending (important) deadline-- then called it to Raul's attention so he would know it was reviewed and could have a look if I didn't finish tonight. In fact, I haven't finished tonight, have seven more articles to read. Raul knows about it, so there's no reason for concern. But let's stop shooting each other and giving the peanut gallery reason to believe that FAC and FA writers are all "prima donnas", ok? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I waited until you'd said all good before I moved it to the nomination page as I wanted to get it the maximum exposure for any necessary edits to the lede before it went up in a few days. If it had a longer lead time I wouldn't have bothered until all the formalities were completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to point any fingers here, Sturm, and certainly didn't mean to point any at you. My "all is good" edit summary most likely confused you and that is my fault; a FAC is not closed until it's closed, and I only meant that all of my prose niggles were resolved, but I was still working, and in the event I didn't finish getting through FAC, I was indicating that my niggles were resolved should Raul get to it before I finished. But now I'm unclear whether Imzadi considers that I have a COI because I entered comments. I don't care a wit about the long knives from the peanut gallery who have ill intentions towards FAC and FA writers, but as I said, it's the friendly fire that exhausts and we should all take care not to give the peanut gallery reason to shoot more blanks. I'd like clarification from Imzadi and will look in again tomorrow morning when I finish reading the remaining FACs that are maturing. Raul juggles many factors in deciding what TFAs to run, and if he intends to run a Pearl Harbor TFA this year, I'm sure all will end well, and there's no need to jump the gun. Again, I'm sorry for my part in confusing you with the edit summary. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware how you actually worked closings. I'll keep it in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, and leave it to Sandy's judgement if she's sufficiently involved in the review to close or not. This is one of those borderline cases that doesn't have a nice yes/no answer. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Imzadi ... not sure how we're supposed to resolve this bind, since so many FACs sit there waiting for review, then delegates have to look ourselves, if delegates don't look and weigh in it's claimed that we don't review content, if we do, we supposedly have a COI... lose-lose :) Well, I trust that Raul is aware so the situation will be handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I didn't expect a prose review, although you made some good suggestions; I only wanted it closed in time for the anniversary and thought that it met all the necessary criteria. I'm not really concerned if a delegate feels the urge to make suggestions or not since that depends on the quality of the reviews, which is, as we all know, highly variable. So I wouldn't think that you've placed yourself in a COI situation just because you made some comments and/or suggestions. As a delegate, you have to step up if the reviewers have missed some things in your estimation. That's just doing what's necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here was that (as typical for MilHist) it hadn't gotten enough independent review, so I had to give it a thorough going over (had there been more independent review, I might not have had to enter so much commentary myself). I don't think I've put myself in a COI either, since none of my niggles were enough to prevent promotion, but with the long knives out to get FAC, I'm also not interested in testing anyone else's "pseudo" "hypotheses" about how I should do my "job". I'll ping Ucucha to have a look, since Raul hasn't gotten to it yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it passed! Sturm, you're simply awesome, and Sandy, your help was much appreciated. Thank you all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we got it done, thankfully. I just need to learn to go through things like this with a much finer comb; there were whole sections that I didn't pay much attention to before I nom'ed it thinking that they'd been done already. They would have been caught in the GAN or the ACR if we'd had time, but still...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Further proof of the difficulty in pleasing any of the people any of the time, see WP:ERRORS for the complaints that have already started. Hence, my comment that we get shot at enough without adding in friendly fire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And more complaints at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 7. Apparently, only mentioning Pearl Harbor in the TFA blurb and not also the On This Day box (which of course as we know is the most-read section of the main page and the thing that everyone reads first) "lends credence to the "Wikipedia is too liberal" argument" (user1) and "will surely seem like a slap in the face to many users, which seems to me like pretty poor policy/approach on Wikipedia's part" because "there is overall no indication that an extremely important event in world history happened today" (user2) Someone else help me before I say something I don't regret. Bencherlite^Talk 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sturmvogel, well said. Bencherlite^Talk 15:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig

Hi, I have a question regarding the Joachim Helbig article and the claim that the British at some point referred to his unit as "The Helbig Flyers". Do you happen to have access to a non-German source for this claim? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never hear of that name before, but your best bet would be British pilot memoirs who flew against him for confirmation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations again!

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Sturmvogel 66 for his fine efforts in the November 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 116 points from 22 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You might be interested in Talk:The Longford Trust, a GA you recently passed. Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work, have you checked the user for other copyvio issues?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a stream of DYK notifications on the user's talk page-- they should be checked at least (but I've got my hands full for the next few days-- of course, so do you, TFA :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted one userspace draft of his already (four sentences, all more-or-less identical to the sourcse from which they came: not a good start to a draft). I'm having a look now to see what else I can find. For "a stream of DYK notifications", read "four": The Longford Trust, Gerrymandering (film), Edward Fitzgerald (barrister) and West Wing Week. Bencherlite^Talk 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the hyperbole ... I only glanced up a short ways before clicking out in exasperation :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could be worse... Anyway, when I said I was having a look now, what I actually meant was "it's midnight in my time zone, so I'm off to bed and will look at things another time if work permits and nobody gets there first." Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Imperator Pavel I

Hey Sturm, just giving you a poke on the GAN - I think you might have lost track of it. Have you had a chance to look at Halpern yet? Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did totally forget. All done now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba

Can you tell me why this article failed to be awarded a GA, please? There is no note on the discussion page regarding why you came to your decision and the whole page regarding the review is no longer on the discussion page. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't stable and fails criteria 5. You're edit warring with other editors. My original comments are at Talk:Battle of Magdhaba/GA1. You can otherwise access the page through your contributions link. In my opinion, you need to use the unit titles as they were used at that time, whatever they were, and resolve the rest of the differences with the other editors before bringing it back to GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just went straight to the article talk page and couldn't find anything, except that it had failed.

Thanks very much for your time reviewing this article. Unfortunately it has turned out to be a bad time to do it, regarding the edit war. Perhaps in a week or two things may be different.

However, I'm keen to know if the prose quality is satisfactory now? And if I need to work on the coverage and its focus? Or was it simply because of the edit war? I'd be grateful to know your thoughts. --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the edit war is over. Can you please have another look at this article for a GA? --Rskp (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you wait a week from the date that I failed it and resubmit it for a new GA then and let me know when you do that. The prose is better, but I think that you still have a problem with including too much background information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get back to it in the New Year. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona

		The Epic Barnstar
		For you outstanding effort to bring the battleship Arizona up to FA-class in time for the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor I hereby award you The Epic Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

28 cm SK L/40 "Bruno"

I was just reading the article to see if I could do the review. The abbreviations "Sprenggranate L/2.9 m. Bdz." I believe that "m. Bdz." stands for "mit Bodenzünder" (with base fuse) and that "Kz." stands for "Kopfzünder" (head fuse). If true, could you add a footnote please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what they stand for, but I spelled that out fully in English. I just didn't spell out the German abbreviations because I don't think that it would add much for the English-speaking audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona photo

Hi,

I have recently noticed a discrepancy, which I hope you may be able to shine some light on, as a major contributor to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39). The photo in the info box is supposedly from 1930, but our article says that the ship was in Norfolk Navy yard from 1929 to 1931 for modernisation. The date of 1930 comes from the national archives, which is obviously reputable... but they could have made a mistake. I have started a conversation on the photos talk page on commons, if you want to add you thoughts.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battleship Barnstar!

	The Battleship Barnstar!
	For your great work on battleship articles! ♫GoP♫TCN 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, sir!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Java War (1741–1743)

Hi Sturm, I was wondering how the review of Java War (1741–1743) is going. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been caught up finishing up finals. I should get to it later today or tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Thanks. Congrats on Arizona, BTW. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

If you have the time, I was hoping you could help me. I don't have much experience with GA. My Russian friend and I have collaborated on several extensive Russian articles here. Our best article is on the Nobel Prize winner Ivan Bunin. My main concern is that most of the refs for the Bunin article are Russian language refs. Does it have a shot at GA with these refs? My collaborator has several GA and FA articles on ru.wiki, so his sources are trusted there. One of the reasons I ask is that GA Russian literature related articles are almost non-existant here. The other reason is that my collaborator and I have other big articles ready like Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy and Mirra Lokhvitskaya, or almost ready, and the English language sources have proven to be scarce (and I've really searched for them).

I've also wondered for a while if the List of Russian explorers or the List of Russian artists would qualify for Featured List status?--INeverCry 04:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem that I see with your articles is your use of citations in Russian. They should probably be transliterated in their entirety. At the very least, simple things like page, place of publication, etc., should be translated into English, but that's just me. I'd inquire on the talk page of the Literature project about their guidelines about citations in languages other than English as they'd know more than I would. I think that your articles easily qualify for GA status and I'd encourage you to write more. Your lists also look good enough for FLC, though there may be a problem that you haven't cited the table cells that provide the person's lifetimes. I'd look at on-going FLCs and see how they're being evaluated for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and encouragement. Your opinion on the quality of our articles is almost as good to me as a little green GA button.--INeverCry 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are very kind to say so, but you should be aware that I'm not well-read in Russian literature, especially anything after Turgenev and Leo Tolstoy. So I wouldn't place a lot of value on my opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Basilisk (H11)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Help desk

Your input would be appreciated at this Help desk thread if you haven't seen already. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hesperus edit conflict.

Hi Sturm. Nice work on the Hesperus article.

On the edit conflict situation, the template you put up clearly says: You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. That's exactly what I did, nothing more or less. Now, if you want other editors to stay away from an article for a while to avoid edit conflicts you should use Template:In use. That template says what you want, the one you've been using doesn't. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite correct, but I expect a certain amount of circumspection and examination of the article history when adding something to a page with that template. I generally use it if I'm going to be working on something for an extended period of time, rather than the more focused time that I spent on it today. I'll try to remember to use the "in use" template when working on one of the latter articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably best if you use the "in use" template when you're actively doing major edits on an article. The "under construction" template does, after all, encourage other users to pitch in and help, which is, as previously mentioned, what I did. Manxruler (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not mad, I just wish that you had looked to see when I'd made my last edit. But it's not a big deal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm not mad either. Next time I'll try to watch out for when you last edited an article, regardless of which template has been used. I really do enjoy and admire the work you're doing on the various warship articles, perhaps especially the destroyers. Manxruler (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody's enjoying them. And I appreciate the help with the links. I had no idea that there was an article on the occupation on the Faeroes. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect we're quite a few who do. The naval ship crowd for certain. Also, the destroyer articles often make for very good DYKs, which I appreciate. The British response to Operation Weserübung and the Danish government's decision to capitulate is quite interesting, not only did they occupy the Faroes, they also captured Iceland. Lots of things going on in Scandinavia in April-June 1940. It's not without reason I'm quite focused on the events of 1940 when it comes to the Second World War. Manxruler (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I plan on working on more destroyer articles this month to take advantage of the GAN elimination drive since the usual month-long wait is tedious when I'm trying to finish off a GTC of some kind. It's a pity that the DYK rules aren't any more liberal as it would be nice to publicize the incident where the two German submarine crewmen were thrown into Hesperus's motorboat. I rewrote nearly the entire article, but only added about 2K more text so it doesn't qualify for a DYK. The current rules are nicely simple, which is important, but it does cut down on the interesting trivia that one can present to the large Wiki audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one unusual way to get captured, that's for sure. :) I see your point. I have encountered a number of sizable and unreferenced/poorly referenced articles which I've completely rewritten. At least there are plenty of stubs and redlinks to work on. Manxruler (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's no lie!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Apkallu

Hi. I corrected the broken link for the dyk. Sorry about that. No idea how that happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regstuff (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Hurricane (H06)

Orlady (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 09:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt

G'day, sorry I'm still a bit confused by that last point about the range. Can you take a quick look at the review again and let me know whether I've missed something? Talk:German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt/GA1. Anyway, its late here so I'll have to call it a night. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Havelock (H88)

Orlady (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Highlander (H44)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Ivanhoe (D16)

Merry Xmas to all our contributors and readers Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 2011

Sturmvogel 66,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis that season again

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season (and you're enjoying your winter break)! Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, hope you have a good Boxing Day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Imogen (D44)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Akagi

If you would like to go ahead and submit Akagi to FA, I probably won't be making any more major changes to it. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it once I get back home after New Year's Day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

New HMS New Zealand photo

I've just found an excellent photo of HMS New Zealand on the State Library of South Australia's Flikr stream, and uploaded it at File:HMS New Zealand at Adelaide.jpg. I think that it's much better than the current infobox photo, but I'll let you be the judge of how to use it given that the article is currently at FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In recognition of your excellent work

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		For your work on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, HMS Hermes (95) and HMS Vanguard (23), all of which were promoted to A-Class between October and December 2011, I am pleased to present you with the Military history A-Class medal with swords. On behalf of the project coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1st Provisional Marine Brigade FAC

Hello. Just wanted to let you know, 1st Provisional Marine Brigade, which you reviewed last time it was up for FAC, is up again (last time it ran out of time without getting enough supports) If you could take another look, I would appreciate it! The review is here. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 14:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm still waiting for a response from you here. —Ed!^(talk) 15:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll finish it up this weekend. Sorry for the delays. BTW, I don't know if you caught them, but I made some comments on your Marine Brigade FAC just before it was promoted. It would probably be worthwhile to look them over as I think that they'd improve the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rio

Hey Sturm, I thought you might be interested in this. Also, given what I have at South American dreadnought race#Third stage: another Brazilian dreadnought, we may be able to add enough so you can get Rio through FAC even with a paucity of information about her WWI activities. Last, there are a ton of NARA photos of Arizona on the Commons – I don't know why I didn't see them before. You may want to look through them, as some are quite good. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba resubmitted for GA review

Hi, the edit war seems to have died down and so I'm just letting you know, as I promised I would, that this article has been resubmitted, with high hopes that third time is indeed lucky! --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello again. This is just a quick message to let you know that the Mediation Cabal case you are involved in is now under way. A set of ground rules has been laid out, awaiting approval of all parties involved. This is the last time I shall send a general talk page message regarding the case (unless I have specific reason to do so) - therefore, if you have not already, I recommend that you add the case page to your watchlist. If you have any problems with the mediation process, or if you are unable to participate, please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you for your co-operation. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Buggie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Magic word

Holla, after having stumbled across Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō, I think you should add {{DISPLAYTITLE:Japanese aircraft carrier ''Zuihō''}} to the article so the title follows conventions of having ship names italicised. Just saying, so you know what to add to other ship articles. Take care --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

DYK for Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi there, Sturmvogel. Just a quick note to let you know that the Mediation Cabal case your are involved in is currently waiting for your opening statement before it can proceed any further. If you could briefly outline your interpretation of the case, that would enable us to move forward in the process. If you have any concerns or issues, just let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg

Hello, could you please help us identify the time and location that this image was taken, I'm writing this here because you had nominated USS Arizona (BB-39) for FA, also as a member of many related WikiProjects, you probably have good information about this. this image is currently nominated for FP, please see its discussion here. Thanks for the help.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

Nice work on Akagi with Cla. That's a really good article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice to hear. You did pretty good on the dreadnought race article as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}`

Katharine Hepburn

Is that true that you just read a biography of her? If that's the case, would you maybe be interested in reviewing the article? It is struggling to get any comments right now (see here). I'd be so happy for some comments, if you can spare the time! Which book did you read? It wasn't the new Scotty Bowers one was it? --Lobo (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I planned to; I'll get to it sometime this weekend. I read Katharine Hepburn: The Untold Story by James Robert Parish. It was OK; it's most interesting conclusion was that Hepburn and Tracy probably never consummated their relationship physically. The authors suggests that Kate was bisexual with confirmed love affairs with Howard Hughes and Leland Hayward and unconfirmed affairs with Laura Harding and several other women.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, I've stayed far away from that book. From what I've read it is based on no solid research at all, and is pure guesswork. Yeah Mann argues that the Tracy relationship wasn't sexual as well. I don't buy it - there are too many comments from people who knew them who talk about it as a "real" relationship. It was a very weird relationship and I don't understand it (apparently they would never sleep in the same room), but I've read enough stuff that convices me it wasn't just a long friendship. There's this one telegraph from Hepburn reproduced in the Curtis book, that I don't think Parish or Mann or anyone else would've had access to (sorry I have to quote it) - she says "for the first time in my life I am humbly—sweetly—desperately in love—was then, and frantically trying to understand this feeling and become a woman". Now how can anyone say that was just a friendship?! They just both needed a lot of space. And I personally think there would be more concrete evidence if she'd actually had a romantic relationship with Laura Harding, and any other women. Kate openly joked about her and Laura being seen as a couple, which I don't think she would have done if it had actually occurred.

ANYWAY I'm rambling. That would be so so great to have a review. I'm worried about it slipping away without any attention, that would suck. --Lobo (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Barring a time machine, we'll never know the exact truth, so I'm agnostic on the subject if they did or didn't, but I do think that the subject needs to be addressed. Especially as it's a subject of fascination in the biographies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zuihō class aircraft carrier

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello Sturmvogel. I hope you can help Parsecboy and me. I am doing a GA Review of German cruiser Emden. Under the heading Service history, the second para begins:

• After the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10) Her first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2)

Elsewhere, Wikipedia states that Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September. It is my view that readers of this article will quickly see the anomaly in the above sentences – namely that outbreak of the war, installation of a degaussing coil, arming with a load of mines, positioning to the North Sea and laying a minefield all occurred on the same day – 3 September.

I have raised this anomaly repeatedly with Parsecboy but he doesn’t acknowledge the need for Wikipedia to resolve or clarify the anomaly in some way. Parsecboy has confirmed that Williamson only says the degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of war. Williamson doesn’t specify that the coil was installed on 3 September or any other nominated date.

The current state of the debate can be seen at diff.

Are you able to assist, either by suggesting a way this information can be presented that avoids the obvious anomaly; or by persuading Parsecboy that there is an anomaly worth resolving before the article is promoted to Good article? Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Dolphin (t) 00:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin, Wikipedia is not the authority on when World War II began. Many historians use 1 September as the starting date. There's no inconsistency if one assumes the 1 September date. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't talking about many historians. We are talking about the information from Williamson. Does Williamson nominate the date on which he considers the war started? Does Williamson nominate the date on which the degaussing coil was installed? Presumably not. Readers will spot the obvious anomaly. It is an anomaly which must be resolved if this article is to be promoted to GA. Regards. Dolphin (t) 00:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything specifically on Emden, but Gröner says a degaussing coil installed above the waterline after '40-41 in his book on large German warships. I don't know offhand how many mines Emden carried, but I know that for the British minelaying destroyers it was a multi-day operation just to load the mines aboard. So I suspect that they were loaded before the Brits declared war and then laid on 3 September; so there's no contradiction about that part, as far as I'm concerned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks for responding to my request. It is not necessary to have specific information on Emden. Please put yourself in the position of a reader who also has nothing specific on Emden, but is an astute and critical reader; and ask yourself how that reader might react on reading the second paragraph. In my case, the anomaly lit up the page as clearly as if it was a neon light. I immediately checked the dates of the opening events of the war, just to check my memory wasn't failing me, and sure enough there it was - the opening events were on the 1st and 3rd of September 1939. I think critical readers will also quickly identify the anomaly. If this article is to be promoted to GA the anomaly must be eliminated somehow. Do you have a suggestion? Alternatively, do you agree this is an anomaly worth resolving before determining whether the article passes or fails the GA Review? Dolphin (t) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin, I don't know why I have to keep explaining this. 'It does not matter a goddamn bit what you think is plausible or not. Have you ever even read WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:CITE? You don't think it's possible that the degaussing coil was installed between 1 September and 3 September? Too fucking bad, you don't make the rules. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit. Fail the article, I don't really care. I will immediately re-nominate it so someone with a basic grasp of Wikipedia content policies can review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Classic H-Wood

Thanks Sturm, I am delighted with Kate's promotion. I've actually already re-written the Spencer Tracy article. It was pathetically short a few months ago, and I thought "I can't have Kate's article so strong, and leave his so weak." But I still have a bit more to add, and then give it some polish, and then I'll take him to GA (and who know, maybe FA at some point?! I fear I have the bug now). Make sure you read the James Curtis bio - it's huge, but a great read. And stay well away from the Bill Davidson one. I can't say I have plans for Jimmy Stewart or Bogie - their articles are a bit messy, but they are a lot better than most classic H-Wood bios. And as much as I love watching both of them, I don't think I'd be hugely interested in reading about them.

I've been wanting to ask you something about the KH biography you read actually, if you don't mind. Does he claim that she was in a relationship with Laura at the same time as with Leland Hayward? Because the whole time she was living with Laura, she was seeing Hayward (Laura left Hollywood in about 1935). But you said he thinks she had a relationship with both..? How does he get around this? I've been wondering about it.

It's nice to know you're a fan of classic films. A big diversion from navy history! Seen any good ones lately? --Lobo (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've returned the book to the library, but I think that the the author said said that Hayward was one of the reasons that Laura left. Also I think that there was a little-known female assistant director that Hepburn was seeing around that time, although I may be misremembering the sequence about all of that. The author spun the various affairs like Hepburn wasn't above sleeping with people to help advance her career, although her anger when Hayward married Margaret Sullavan was supposed to have been titanic. I'm afraid that I'm not really a Chaplin fan, although some of that may be my own problems with silent films and the conventions of the era. I find his later comedies way over the top and couldn't finish The Great Dictator or even City Lights.

I've been working my way through the TV show Mad Men (highly recommended) lately, but I borrowed Giant from the library and was disappointed when it proved to be too scratched to use. (Note to self, find another copy) Other recent movies were Citizen Kane (overrated), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (amazing, one of the best of all time), Long Day's Journey into Night (amazing as well, but too depressing to watch again anytime soon), Holiday (so-so), Bringing Up Baby (OK, but not great), North by Northwest (overrated), Rear Window (awesome, one of my favorites), Judgement of Eve (excellent), Vertigo (overrated), To Catch a Thief (fun, but not great), Rebecca (quite good), Notorious (excellent), Maltese Falcon (very good, but perhaps a bit overrated), Lifeboat (interesting), The 39 Steps (lame and implausible), and the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much (good, but not great).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That director you're talking about would be Dorothy Arzner, who directed Kate's second film. Arzner was definitely a lesbian, but there's no evidence I know of that suggests she had an affair with KH (although I knew these trashy bios claimed it). "The author spun the various affairs like Hepburn wasn't above sleeping with people to help advance her career" > this is definitely true (corroborated by Katharine Houghton), but I'd honestly take most things Parish said with a huge teaspoon of salt.

Couldn't finish The Great Dictator?!? Gasp, I think that is one of the greatest films ever made! You've also dismissed two of my other absolute favourites, Bringing Up Baby and Citizen Kane, so perhaps we shouldn't discuss movies again. ;) But we are in full agreement about Mad Men. Excellent show, I can't wait for the new season. --Lobo (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't Arzner. It was somebody (Jane???) who never got a chance to direct and the author implied that this person sacrificed a chance(s) at directing for Hepburn's sake as part of KH's support system in the mid- to late 30s. I can get the book out of the library again if you'd like more info. On the Chaplin film, he used far more farce than I'm comfortable with, I guess, and I couldn't suspend my disbelief any longer. Farce needs to be used with a light hand, IMO, and Chaplin went overboard. I'd have to watch Bringing Up Baby again to see what exactly I didn't like, but Citizen Kane seemed incomplete. It had a fair amount of extraneous stuff in it and was missing some important pieces on Kane's history that should have been included, from what I remember.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, John and I have seen almost all of those and your takes are identical to ours, except for Mad Men ... couldn't get into that, can you recommend any particular episode? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I really couldn't say, but I got Season 1 from the library and just went through all of them in order. Superb TV; makes me wish that I had cable to watch the new season on. I did finally see Giant last night. Interesting, but too heavy-handed at the end. Dean and Taylor had the most interesting performances, although Dean's character needed some more background to be fully fleshed out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi there, I'm sending this message to everyone involved in the Falklands War mediation case. After some discussion, it seems that the established consensus was to include Margaret Thatcher only in the infobox for the war, which has not changed since the initiation of the case. We now need to establish whether or not an RfC or discussion should be held regarding the role of military history infoboxes in general. Could you please indicate your position at the bottom of this section. I am hoping that we can get moving with this again to reach a conclusion that we are all happy with, and this will help us to do that. Thank you for your time. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Turahan Bey

Hello Sturmvogel! Are you still reviewing Turahan Bey? Constantine ✍ 12:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that you'd made the necessary changes as I only watchlist the GA review page, not the page itself. Next time, let me know on that page and I'll see if anything else needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

THanks, I'll keep that in mind. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's promoted now. Thanks for the reminder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian monitor Ceará and other

Hello In Brazilian monitor Ceará and other from this topic you use: The oblong gun turret sat on a circular platform that had a central pivot. It was rotated by four men via a system of gears; 2.25 minutes were required for a full 360° rotation.

2.25 = 2 minutes 25 seconds or 2 minutes and 0.25 of minute so 15 seconds?

PMG (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello? PMG (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two and one quarter minutes or 135 seconds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ibuki class cruiser

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work with this article! Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Sturmvogel 66: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/09 January 2012/Falklands War

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, ItsZippy, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Template:Did you know nominations/Take This Lollipop

Though I hated to clutter the article with additional citations, your concern was easily addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

G3 battlecruiser

Hello

I am making translation of G3 battlecruiser to pl.wiki. We found one problem: They were designed to produce a total of 160,000 shaft horsepower (120,000 kW) at a working pressure of 200 psi (1,379 kPa) and temperature of 200 °F (93 °C). - steam in 93°C - its just water. Bigger pressure -> higher temperature of moment when water turn to steam. So if it`s not a boiling water for tea at top of Mount Everest there is error. Can you check this? PMG (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is correct as given in the source. It may be a typo, but I cannot confirm that from any other source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Volage (1869)

The DYK project (nominate) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

17 cm mittlerer Minenwerfer specs

Hi there, the article gives "Maximum range 1,600 m (1,116 yards)" - both can't be correct. Do you have info on what it should be ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Incorrect manual conversion, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Harvrefs

Hi Sturmvogel, thanks for your message on my talk page.

I am not sure what you are on about exactly. I added harvrefs to the page that I am currently undertaking under GA review. You didn't mention any page or template in particular to which I have added them.

I do appreciate that WP:MILHIST etc. has its own style and a very good one to which many other branches of Wikipedia look up to as an example of how things should be done. All credit to you for that. But by the same token, if you don't tell me what article or whatever then there is hardly anything I can do or say about it. My take with GA is that I tend to make what I consider minor edits first so that the main author does not get annoyed at constantly being asked about small edits, then I summarise and then it is discussed.

Why should I not "change the ref style of any article without discussing it with the editors involved"? Edit, revert discuss. THis is one of the three pillars. So I have edited, you have reversed, and now we are discussing. Which is as it should be. You sound a little agressive but I don't think you mean to be. I'd like much to discuss this with you why I made the changes I did and come to a consensus.

BTW I also changed {{Winfield}} but ONLY to add the harvref in there, I have not taken anything out of it, just added the ref= tag for future use. I have not used it so far but it was there ready to if needed or wanted, and I saw no harm by doing so.

My sincere best wishes. Si Trew (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have reminded you that you'd done this during your GA review of the Briton class and , but you've probably already figured that out already. As for changing the cite style, see WP:SFN. I look forward to working with you on the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I had guessed but it is best to be clear for the sake of the history etc of the discussion. I look forward to working with you too. It is very well written and very well sourced and stuff: pretty much a clear GA pass in my opinion. The only kinda niggly points I have are with the references all being to the same source (in particular to whitfield and lyon they are to the same PAGE of that source, which surely cannot be right?) and who your audience is. If for a general audience some of the military terms need putting in plainer language, but if for a military audience or fan the tone is exactly right for that. (I worked for, not in, the army for many a year so I can understand Army language, especially the words beginning with Foxtrot.) I think it is a great article and, like you, just want to polish it a bit and it should sail through GA I think. If my polishing with the harvnb is not to your liking, I can understand that, but MILHIST does kinda have its own way of doing things sometimes: I just did about forty French references for an article I translated, and had to translate the references and translate French templates to English, so perhaps I am just tired of references. They are the hardest thing to do.

Thank you for your good faith, yeah, this should be a GA with a little few minor edits. It is a very well written article and I don't mind at all that you dispute my comments, that is what it is about.

Had edit conflict with you as I was posting earlier so please excuse the lateness of my reply.

Sincere best wishes Si Trew (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just let me know whenever you think I could have written it in clearer language or if I'm using too much nautical jargon. I tried to link to most of those, but it's always hard to know how much of that sort of stuff you can assume that people know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you have done a great job with linking the nautical jargon, I think you have got it exactly right with the mix there. Obviously it is a fairly technical article so people should be expected to know their port from starboard and so forth, and I think your links are exactly well placed neither to overlink nor underlink. I don't want to go man overboard on it, it is a pretty straight pass on it as far as I am concerned, a well written and coherent article that says what it aims to say and says it clearly. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

QF 14 pounder gun

Hi there, I originally created the article to document the gun as deployed by the Royal Navy i.e. the guns it inherited from the Chilean order. So I think the RN stuff should stay. If the guns as deployed elsewhere such as Victoria were an unrelated gun then perhaps the Victoria stuff should be removed. What is your source that they were not related ? Stuff I've found indicates they were all versions of the same Maxim-Nordefelt/Vickers-Maxim gun... the RN guns were separate QF, the ones on Cerberus were fixed QF but that was not a major difference. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rod, the guns on the Chilean ships were 50-calibre weapons weighing 17 or 18 cwt, a lot more than your Maxim-Nordenfeldt gun which also had a shorter barrel. The existing article should probably be renamed to QF 14 pounder Maxim-Nordenfeldt or somesuch and cleaned up to removed any remaining confusion with the Chilean guns, like the 12.5-lb ammo stats; with a new article entitled QF 14 pounder Mk I-II to cover the latter guns. I'm using Friedman's new Naval Weapons of World War I as my source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like I've made a real mess of this... best then to remove all references to the Chilean/RN gun, 12 pounder ammo etc, just leave it as named with Victorian navy stuff. Current article name is correct for the Victorian navy guns. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Taken care of. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

USS Shangri-La (CV-38)

Hello

Can you check this article? Inside USS_Shangri-La_(CV-38)#Vietnam there is **The date of 30 June 1969 is incorrect. She deployed to the Mediterranean in early January of 1969 and came back to Mayport, Florida at the end of July 1969. On the way back to the US in July, she was changed from CVA to CVS.** visible in text. My English is not so good to fix articles. PMG (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Steamtown, USA/archive2

hi, Thanks for your photo review. I have responded on the template.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Steamtown image update

I was just about to call it a night when I got an email from a photographer with 5 new images for Steamtown, USA. Enjoy--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

actually these are the ones that used to be there. They are properly licensed now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Amethyst (1873)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Druid (1869)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Best practice

I am trying to collect what I would call best practices related to German military articles here. Maybe you are interested in the topic and would like to participate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)