User talk:Parsecboy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MilHistBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
130,297 edits
Awarded A-Class cross with Oak Leaves to Parsecboy
Line 586: Line 586:
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1167880714 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1167880714 -->
== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==
{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves) 2.png|90px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |&ensp;'''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_crosses|Military history A-Class cross with Oak Leaves]]'''''&ensp;
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross with Oak Leaves for [[French battleship Charles Martel]], [[French battleship Liberté]], [[List of protected cruisers of France]], [[SMS Yorck]], and [[French battleship Justice]]. {{user0|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} via [[User:MilHistBot|MilHistBot]] ([[User talk:MilHistBot|talk]]) 00:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 00:30, 13 August 2023
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.
If my main talk is protected due to vandalism, please leave comments here.

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy to Commons

Hi,

You uploaded File:French cruiser D'Assas.jpg, and File:French cruiser Nielly.jpg with a tag to not copy to Commons? What's the reason for this? The book is from the UK, which is 70 years pma. Per c:Category:Marius Bar, the author died in 1930 so they should be PD in the UK as well as USA. Am I missing something? -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "do not move to Commons" tag is automatically applied by {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:French_cruiser_D%27Assas.jpg&action=edit&section=2 the section]), which is the technically correct template to use here on en.wiki, since we only care about US copyright. And by the way, Bar was French (and routinely published his photos there, so France would be the country of origin, not that it matters in this case, since the term is the same). I don't upload images to Commons, as I detest their interface - you are free to move them over if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Elbing

Greetings,

May I ask how holed is preferred over hulled? As far as I'm aware the latter is better English for describing the situation. — Imperator Talk 04:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not so sure of that? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a commonly used expression in this context. A simple Google Books search shows "holed" is preferred by a wide margin to "hulled" (which despite listing 3 pages of returns, only gave us 1 full and a partial page). And from a pragmatic standpoint, if the reader is not familiar with either version of the expression, "holed" is far easier to understand than "hulled". Parsecboy (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Good morning,


I have been cleaning up the US articles of ships with no need for disambiguation and I've run into a bunch of articles that I can't move. For the most part I've sent them to uncontroversial technical requests to get them moved. However, there are entire classes that seem to have been "protected" against moving. Should I send them to requested moves or should I ask for a project level effort. I don't want to make it look like I'm picking on people, I just want to end the bickering. Llammakey (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llamma - the uncontroversial technical requests should be fine, since we're just bringing the titles into compliance with established naming policy. But I'm curious about the articles - are they actually move protected or do the redirects have edit-histories that prevent them being moved over? Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually protected. It just seems like an effort was made to prevent moves a long time ago by the original editor. They left Wikipedia in quite the huff in 2008 and it just seems to be that one editor's pages. It's kinda sad that we are just getting around to this 15 years later. I will continue with the technical requests then. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many things left still left undone, whether articles that haven't been created (or left stubs for years), or goofy stuff like this, which was also like that for 15 years. Someday we'll get there, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I come asking for advice again. The page USS Bellerophon (ARL-31) is the only ship of the name. However, the page USS Bellerophon is a disambiguation page full of Star Trek cruft. Now, since I got into it with Trekphiler a long time ago about that stuff I do not want to go near it, just in case. So I'm not sure where to bring this one, since it's not really a dab page. Thanks. 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about Trekphiler - he's been gone a long time (and I doubt he's ever coming back - last I see is a declined unblock in 2021). On to the matter at hand, I could see a case made to just leave it as it is, since the ship isn't particularly high traffic, so there isn't a lot of point to moving the dab to USS Bellerophon (disambiguation) so the ship can have the primary location. On the other hand, none of the other items actually have articles, so the dab page itself is contrary to MOS:DABNOLINK and MOS:DABRED (since I can't imagine there ever being an article on the fictional ships that would pass GNG. Probably what we ought to do is nominate it at WP:RFD, get it deleted, and then move the ship over it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Schwaben

You have reverted my picture of the launch of SMS Schwaben. I don't know why as it came from Wikimedia Commons. It was originally published in Die Woche, a contemporary German illustrated newspaper. Have I failed to add some relevant information? TriodeFollower (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the file on Commons needs to be updated. Just because something is hosted on Commons isn't proof that it can be used freely. We need evidence that the photo is public domain in the US and the country of origin (in this case, Germany). That means we need the original publication, the author, and their date of death. The uploader clearly didn't take the photo, so that needs to be fixed, and it's certainly not licensed under CC0 1.0. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graf Spee

Parsecboy, in providing info about a Soviet ship, would you refer to the 'Communist Soviet Navy'? Or in the case of an Italian warship, the 'Fascist Italian Navy'? I don't think so.

Also, "which served with the Kriegsmarine" seems quaintly anthropomorphic. Despite centuries of picturesque nautical tradition, ships aren't sentient beings and don't "serve" in the manner of the prince of Wales's motto "Ich dien". They merely are part of a navy, shipping company, etc. (And for that matter, ships can't themselves be members of political parties.)

Suggest the link to Nazi Germany be moved to "German" in the phrase I used – "of the German Navy." Thanks. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There never was a country officially called "Nazi Germany." Until the end of the war, the name of the country officially was Das Deutsche Reich (The German Empire [or Realm]).
As an odd sidelight to this, for complicated legal reasons the railway in East Germany remained Die Reichsbahn until reunification in 1990. -- Sca (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that you had to link to Nazi Germany? That is the way Germany under the Nazi regime is most commonly referred to in English. What the country's WP:OFFICIALNAME was isn't relevant, unless it happens to coincide with common usage. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Parsecboy, your stated reasons for reverting my edit contains a direct contradiction of MOS:RETAIN, which states that the original English variation should be maintained unless there is sufficient reason to change it. You did not specify why you changed from the Torpedo bulkhead article's preexisting British English (preexisting, meaning prior to my edit) to American English. If someone else had changed the English variation prior to my edit, please specify so. Do not cite MOS:RETAIN back at me if I'm not the one who previously changed it – that comes across as insulting.
Also, as stated in my edit summary, piping the link to high-tensile steel was unnecessary per MOS:NOPIPE. Let the redirect to section stand, please don't try to fix links that are not broken; I see that you have undone this revert. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at who created the article, and what version of spelling I used. You might also look more closely at the version of the article you edited. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might have created it, but I had no reason to look into its creation history — I just fixed what I saw when I came across it for the first time. As I said, your edit summary came across to me as an insult even if it wasn't meant so. Please remember to maintain good faith with other editors. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you citing WP:RETAIN, and editing articles trying to enforce it, if you clearly don't understand how to apply it? As for the rest, you've been around far to long for any of that to fly. Stop being defensive, admit you screwed up, and move on with your life. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You might also look more closely at the version of the article you edited." Would you please be more specific? As I said, British English was what I saw in the article body. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, look at the article as you edited it. I really should not have to spoon-feed you this. Again, you've been editing here for 14 years. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to my edit at the beginning of this discussion, and you can convey your message without the attitude or insults. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and did you look at it? I haven't insulted you once; you, on the other hand, repeatedly fling policy pages around when we both know I'm well aware. Do you know that some people find that behavior insulting? Perhaps you find my characterization that you don't understand RETAIN insulting, but that is a mere statement of fact. You didn't look closely enough at the article to see that it had "armour" once and armor six times. You also didn't demonstrate that you understand the whole point of RETAIN, which is to, um, "retain" the original version. You know, the reason why you might want to check the article history before you slap a template on it. Face facts: you were either ignorant of what RETAIN means in practice, or you were so careless in your edit that you didn't notice you were wrong. Either way, you made a mistake. It really is that simple. You made a mistake. Admit it or don't, but please stop wasting both of our time with this nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, please review this discussion. Whether they are right or wrong, this is not how an admin should behave. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old vs new place names

You recently changed the link for Kiaochow Bay to Jiaozhou Bay Leased Territory in some Italian ship articles, but how is a reader who sees a reference to Kiachow Bay if he's reading older sources supposed to know what it refers to? He shouldn't have to make a separate search for Kiachow Bay, IMO. I usually use the name in use at the time, relying on redirects (even double redirects) to get the reader to the right place. Some people aren't satisfied by that and want the modern name used exclusively and I will add a parenthetical note giving the modern name, while retaining the original name. I'm fine if you change the redirect to the modern name if the original name is retained, or if you add a note as I outlined above, but your change is the worst of both worlds, IMO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel all that strongly about only using the one or both versions, but my attention was drawn to WP:PINYIN the other day, and per the MoS, pinyin is the default romanization, which little exception for Wade-Giles or any other romanization. The trouble is, there are multiple versions for a lot of these places, and saying "Jiaozhou (Kiautschou, Kiaochow, Kiao-Chow, or Kiauchau)" gets cumbersome. And as a practical matter, I'd wager that anyone reading books on Chinese history probably knows enough about about transliterations of Chinese that they won't be surprised by one or the other. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but I suspect that the audience for ship articles isn't so familiar with Chinese place names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the case, but I also wonder how many readers are looking at old sources. I suspect the number of readers this would negatively affect is quite small - Marco Polo isn't exactly a high-traffic article ;) One additional point is that we aren't talking about places that actually changed names (a la Danzig/Gdansk), it's just a change of transliteration. Beijing was always Beijing (or at least as far back as the Ming anyway), it was us westerners who changed how we spelled it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, but I've seen a bunch of not-so-old sources on the Russo-Japanese War use the Wade-Giles spellings, sometimes with a Pinyin spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O-class battlecruiser (planned) of the Kriegsmarine status

I have recently taken notice of and joined Operation Majestic Titan, and I noticed that the O-class battlecruiser is the only German battlecruiser that is not yet a featured article. I also noticed you have your talk page is linked through the table in Phase I. Is there any way I could help in bringing the article up from good to featured?


SEKDIS (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEKDIS - I saw you added your name to the project, welcome aboard. One of the main things the article needs is more context on the broader situation (in other words, place the ships in the context of German rearmament under the Nazi regime). For an example of what I'm talking about, see what I added to Plan Z last year from Tooze. This is a big project that would require specific sources, which is partly why I haven't done it myself as of yet.
I don't know what sources you have access to, but you said you have an interest in Spanish and US navies, so you might have an easier time getting something like Standard-type battleship up to GA as a first effort. The articles for all of the relevant ships have all been written, so you could crib references from them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you, I will try to do so. I do not have many sources for the O-class, but I do have some. Is there somewhere I should put them? SEKDIS (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can add a further reading section at the bottom for now - I don't know how much experience you have editing, but I can help with formatting if you need it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to be honest, I have not edited anything apart from correcting grammar and orthography up to now. I can try doing the further reading section or, if you prefer, I can just post it here for you to place. SEKDIS (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way is fine by me, whichever you feel more comfortable doing. If you do want to add a section header, copy this over:
==Further reading==
And that will add the header. You can use citation templates like {{cite book}} to add references - they're pretty easy to fill in once you look at the available fields and determine which ones you need. Normally you'll use:
*{{cite book|last=|first=|title=|year=|location=|publisher=|isbn=}}
There are other fields you may need, like additional authors, if the title is in another language and should be translated also, editors for an edited volume, and a bunch more, but we can look at those if the sources you have need them. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, I will do so.
SEKDIS (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)�[reply]
I have added a Further reading section for the O-class with what I already have, if you need me to look for more, please tell me. I have put the name of the book in both German and English, separated by "/¦\", please correct it as needed. There is also a URL, do I just leave the URL or do you need any specific format? I will start work on the Standard-type. I have also added the Kirov-class Soviet nuclear battlecruiser article to the OMT.
SEKDIS (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another editor fixed up the title translation for us, so that's good to go.
I know we discussed whether or not we should cover Kirov-class battlecruiser in WP:OMT - as I recall, the consensus at the time was that it didn't really fit the scope of the project, since they aren't battlecruisers by the traditional definition, and their label as such was more of a media thing (in the same way that the British press coined the "pocket battleship" phrase in reference to the Deutschland-class cruisers) Both cases are more or less simple propaganda. It's probably worth bringing up on the talk page to see if opinions have changed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, I did not see anything in the talk, I have asked and removed it until there is consensus.
SEKDIS (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it was years ago and was archived a long time ago. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Camaeleon-class/Camäleon-class

Good afternoon, at least the sources which have been provided in de:Camaeleon-Klasse spell it without an umlaut; I haven't found any WP:Commonname sources which spell it with an Umlaut in English sources, either. So I am really not sure if the article title with Umlaut is correct. It also prevents interlanguage links. On Commons it is to be found under commons:Category:Camaeleon class gunboat, too. Warrants at least a discussion, imho. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar. Hildebrand et. al., which is cited in the German and English articles, uses the umlaut. Gröner also routinely uses umlauts in the English translation (though I don't have the book at hand at the moment to confirm specifically that they spelled Camäleon that way, but given that they do use it for other ships, one would suspect that they used it here as well). I can check that later today. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming from the language side here (in the 19th century, printed media like books and newspaper didn't use umlauts as much as from the 1920s onwards (which means that in newspapers from the 1860s-1890s, you would almost certainly have found the spelling camaeleon; I also saw a discussion about the title used in the de-articles somewhere linked from the de-article history, but can't re-find it now, on short notice. Thanks for your efforts, and the spelling is not something I would fight over, but finding an "ä" in an english article title was at least unusual. And I like working interlanguage-links, btw. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that was a limitation of typewriters of the day - but one can find examples of it being used even then, like the translation of the official German record of the Franco-Prussian War or the 1886 edition of Lloyds (in reference to the Austro-Hungarian brig of that time). It probably also doesn't help that these ships existed during a period when spellings were less standardized (as witnessed by the three spellings at de:Chamäleon).
But I've been writing articles on German warships (among others) for quite some time here, and it's quite common to use umlauts in English (but for example, eszetts are generally not used, in comparison). I can't recall that I've ever seen a "SMS Luetzow" in English, for instance. As for this ship, Sondhaus uses the umlaut. Thanks and you as well. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at Gröner and they indeed spell it Camäleon in the English translation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million, the case rests :). Sorry for creating new work for you, but it seemed intuitively the right thing to do. Lectonar (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all - not much around here that can't be undone easily enough, right? Happy editing. Parsecboy (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qingdao

Hi, I see in the article HMS Jed (1904) you've changed the original rendition of Tsingtao to the Pinyin Qingdao. However the source cited in the article uses the older rendition. Doesn't this make it an anachronism? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the distinction here is that the name of the city didn't ever change (like Danzig/Gdansk, Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad, etc.), the spelling only changed in English. Per WP:PINYIN, we should generally use that style of romanization unless the preponderance of current sources still use Wade-Giles (Sun Yat-sen being an obvious example). The city in question is universally referred to as Qingdao today, so there's no reason to use old spellings. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy snuff! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commodore_Perry,_Pamunkey_River_MET_DP70753.jpg

Just to check, as you know these things; this is fairly well-documented as the USS Commodore Perry, but there's discussion on the talk page (from 2007-8) about a misidentification. Think it's correctly attributed? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the image the IP was questioning was File:Gunboat on the Pamunkey River, Va., 1864-65 (4167039208).jpg. It's fairly clear that it and your photo are different vessels - the one identified as Perry lacks the covered bridge and the shape of the windows are clearly different. Perry also appears to have straight sides, while the other one cants in at the ends of the superstructure.
DANFS identifies the vessel in your photo as Commodore Perry with the same photo here and there's what appears to be a contemporary sketch of Commodore Perry here that appears to align with the photo in question. And of course their file listing here labels it as Commodore Perry. The details I mentioned above align with the sketch.
On the other hand, they have the "Gunboat on the Pamunkey River" photo labeled as Commodore Morris (not Morse as the IP says), along with the contemporary sketch here, which again matches the ship in the photo. I can't tell you whether it's Morris or Morse, but the Met is clearly wrong to identify it as Perry. The IP also mentioned Commodore Barney, but as you can see from its contemporary sketch, it is significantly different from Perry and Morris.
Long story short, I don't think anyone is disputing that File:Commodore_Perry,_Pamunkey_River_MET_DP70753.jpg is actually Perry, and everything I've been able to dig up seems to confirm that identification. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Sorry to be a pain, just... don't want to risk miseducating people through images more than the inherent risk of all such things. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 10:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all, I'm happy to help. Now if only we could get the Met to update their description, but it looks like Briochemore tried back in 2019 and they weren't budging. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left feedback on one of the images - don't know that I'll get a response, but we'll see, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and...

Greetings Parsecboy! I get what you were doing (German aviso Grille), but something obviously went awry. Easier & quicker to revert to stable version than to locate where the fault lies... Cheers! Technopat (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for your message. Please note that I did not revert, but restored a stable version. --Technopat (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh - can't figure out why the template isn't playing nicely with the bold text - I've been updating scores and scores of articles I've written to use the lang templates and haven't seen this before. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was this bit: (literally 'War Navy') - the last three apparently confused the system about which set of three apostrophes to pair for the bold text. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually gonna remove that bit (not sure that it's relevant on that particular page, at least not in the intro) but decided to leave it till later 'cos I didn't want to interfere with your troubleshooting. --Technopat (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and it's also not a great translation - but there really isn't one. The thing I can't figure out is why that particular set of apostrophes worked fine before, but the template broke it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you're young enough to have too much blind faith in technology... Technopat (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I'm not that young - the thing is, it is pretty basic coding. Something in the template must have confused the pairing of triple apostrophes (which is what I can't figure out, since it's the only thing that changed, but it works just fine everywhere else, like here, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Can't help... I'm still trying to catch up with the advances in typewriter technology: that golf ball innovation blew my mind! So getting to grips with even basic coding is waaaay down on my to-do list. Good luck! Technopat (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! After doing a bit of experimentation in my sandbox, I think the five apostrophes forced mediawiki to read those pairs together. From what I gather, it doesn't read the code left to right (which is what I had expected). The text works as intended if you leave all five apostrophes, with or without templates, but when you drop down to just bold text, it gets confused about how it pairs the sets, with or without templates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Battleship Justice by the Detroit Publishing Co, c. 1909.jpg

There's a few pages on Wikipedia, notably Hudson–Fulton Celebration claiming this is specifically of Justice at the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. Do you have any evidence this is true? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it turns out the LoC just lays out information in a really stupid way. It's the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. One shouldn't need check subject tags to see that. Also, I've partially restored it. I think I got most of the stuff that's visible without zooming in a lot already, except for the left bit of writing (I'm usually pretty happy to leave writing, but I do ask that people either put it on level or have it be something that doesn't look like it needs to be level like a signature. Maybe it's level to the horizon and I didn't need to, but it's intrusive so screw it, it's going. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it might amuse you to know that I had once taken a stab at restoring that image myself (never got anywhere with it, of course). I think I had talked with Durova for advice and played around with the image a bit, but got busy with grad school stuff, my first kid was born, and it got lost in the shuffle. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. That is not a great first image. The left hand side alone is ridiculous. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 11:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That probably had something to do with why I never finished it! Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always thought that a good first restoration was more on the lines of File:Andrew_George_Scott,_alias_Captain_Moonlite_-_Original.jpg - something which needs one technique (healing tool), not too often, but will teach you to use it, and to consider things like what size and hardness is best for each spot. Kinda wish I hadn't restored that one. But there's plenty like it, if you want to have a go sometime. I can keep an eye out. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 11:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep it in mind - but I don't have as much time as I once did, unfortunately. Much of my editing used to be at work, in my old job, where I had a lot of down time. That's less the case in my current job. A lot of what I do these days is maintenance of existing articles, like my current (very slow) campaign to update stuff to comply with MOS:FOREIGN (like this), though I do still write articles from time to time - French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1877) is a relatively recent example. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped in a slightly better image. Double check it's not an obvious misidentification; if not, we're good, and I'll add it to the list to-do. [1] might be rather good for showing the keel. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's a good image - thanks, much appreciated! And that model photo would be nice to have. I tend to forget about Gallica (and the NHHC collection usually has at least one image of a given ship, so I stop looking). Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Model of the French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1877) - Original.jpg Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! (Though the Agence Rol template isn't working - I'd fix it, but I don't know what the right template is). Parsecboy (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good - I should tuck that away for future use. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update on Justice: Two days in, probably about 6-10 hours' work; still just the left edge is going to take at least another day, probably two. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it would take many days for me to cobble together 6-10 hours of work, and I imagine trying to cobble it together in 15 minutes here, half an hour there, would make it even slower going. Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to approach done. Took me about 15-20 hours for the left hand side, at 400% zoom. The rest is going a lot quicker. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely looks much, much better than when you started! It's funny, zooming in on the original version gives me flashbacks to when I tried to fiddle with it a decade ago! Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put up a before and after of the left side at the FPC. Really wish I had been there to advise back when you did it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the lead image on your user page... this is the original. I think I might need to at least do enough work to deal with it being, well, contrasted up so much that it looks much worse. You get weird edits sometimes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that's quite an impressive difference!
I imagine you see all kinds of things from people who don't quite know what they're doing. I'm a little embarrassed to show you this hatchet job (from the original)! Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not as bad as you'd think: It's hard to make an image like that look good, and while you could have curved it a little better, it's not a bad attempt.
A good rule of thumb for levels adjustments is, if it's an improvement on the original, and you've made it clear it is an edit, it's a good edit. If it isn't, go back to the original. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 22:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, I suppose - and at least it's easier to make out than the original. I would like to eventually do some image work here and there, if I ever find the time to be able to do it - if that day ever comes, and we're both still around, I'll give you a ring! Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mind, um... I did have a little bit of a go. It's never going to be a featured picture, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 22:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still much better than it was! Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, got inspired to write an article for The Bugle on the back of our talk here, so that's something Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 00:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I'll have to check it out. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/August_2023/Op-ed if you want a preview. I keep adding to it, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 01:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, I had read it earlier yesterday (I creeped in your edits ;) and there's more in there now. I did notice you've got two "Google it"s in there now ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dangit. Thought I cut that. Probably did, then added it back while trying to balance it with the Signpost copy Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I do that kind of thing all the time. Just yesterday I had one of those at work (I write training and policy stuff for my department). There, at least I can blame it on server problems with the shared documents we use! Parsecboy (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg-class battleship

Hi Nate ... hope you're well. I was looking around for a ship article to schedule at TFA for October, and Brandenburg-class battleship caught my eye ... I like the phrase "the Imperial German Navy's first ocean-going capital ships in nearly two decades" ... it gives the signficance right up front. I see you've been editing it recently, too. Is there anything left to do on this one before TFA? Would you rather have more time? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, thanks, I'm doing pretty well, I hope you are too. The article should be in pretty good shape - I've mainly just been fiddling with minor things for MoS stuff, so nothing else that needs to be done. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear, and it's such a pleasure to read these ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan! I'm particularly pleased with Brandenburg-class battleship, in fact - it was this edit that was my first foray into the German Imperial Navy, all the way back in 2007. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had no idea, I just liked the article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly come a long way since then! Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker has just nominated a ship for September at WP:TFAR. I see that 29 April 1894 will be the 130th anniversary of the date that all 4 ships were completed ... if that date works for you, I'll put both our names on the recommendation for that date at WP:TFAP. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, been a while, and thanks for the TFAR nomination. Does the April date for Nate's ships work for you too? - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was reading the wrong row ... the 130th anniversary of the completion of all 4 ships appears to be 14 October of next year. Does that date work for both of you? - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem for me at all - whatever makes life easier! Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Schichau (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Schichau (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essex-class aircraft carrier templates

Hey, I saw that you removed the templates at USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) and USS Bennington (CV-20). Before I send the templates to TfD as unused, is there a reason for this? Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I'm not Parsecboy, but I imagine it's because they were being used in place of regular article text. That template was created in 2005... it was a bit of a different time. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's it - they were templates doing things templates shouldn't be doing. Parsecboy (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class cross with Oak Leaves 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross with Oak Leaves for French battleship Charles Martel, French battleship Liberté, List of protected cruisers of France, SMS Yorck, and French battleship Justice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parsecboy&oldid=1170063730"