This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Parsecboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
Padlock-silver.svg
This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.

Page ranges[edit]

Ahoy Parseboy. I was editing on my mobile and didn't notice you had reverted my Battlecruiser edits. The WP Manual of Style allows us to use accepted style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style. The CMS allows for two (or more) digits for page ranges. E.g., "pp. 123–125" or "pp. 123–25". So my battlecruiser edits were in compliance and served to give consistency. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely as date ranges are now supposed to be given as 1895–1899, etc., as per MOS:DOB. So please fix them in the article. You are correct for page ranges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Srich32977: - consistency with what? If all page ranges used the full digits, are they not consistent? And yes, please correct the years per Sturmvogel's comment. Thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Torpedo boat and/or destroyer?[edit]

Looking at S138-class torpedo boat and Ottoman destroyer Muavenet-i Milliye... Conway's calls them "torpedo boat destroyers," just to make things complicated. cc Sturmvogel 66 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We're into different classifications by different navies. The Germans were funny about calling things destroyers with WWII-era fleet torpedo boats coming in around 1,400-1,500 tons. The Brits were the first, IIRC, to call ships torpedo-boat destroyers that was eventually shortened into destroyers. I wouldn't worry about it overmuch although an explanatory note might be necessary when one navy calls a class torpedo boats and another destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
What Sturm said. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Just wandered here, topedo-boat destroyers are first created to destroy topedo boats but they also carried torpedos so then navies around the world found that they are much more useful than PT boat. Once upon convoy protection duties as well as air attacks intensified, then they are armed with AA / flak then it is called destroyers. Another name may be topedo boat leader, which early Clemson as well as Witchia class tin cans are orginally for, to lead torpedo boats, which are also called PT flotilia leader. Source: Memory from many naval books I had read.Quek157 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, but the issue is that the Germans continued to call them torpedo boats, when all other navies would have referred to vessels of that size as destroyers. Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say that their naming is fair, as S138-class_torpedo_boat only have 700 tonnes smaller than most Destroyer_escort. "The first U.S. destroyer, USS Bainbridge (DD 1), was commissioned. Bainbridge, was actually a torpedo boat destroyer, was 250 in length, displaced 420 tons, and had a speed of 29 knots. She carried a crew of 75." ref [1]. A destroyer should be generally "blue-water" ready. It's the eariler abberviation of some early class of destroyers (from PT boat -destroyer) which caused so much confusion. IMO the turks just change the naming convention, they are PT boats under German Navy Quek157 A contemporary example will be whether to call fleet tugs as "deployable battle force", US Navy did it to achieve at least the 283, but is it a battle force ship in the first place? (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, it's not that simple - destroyer escorts came about 4 decades later (it would make as much sense as comparing Arleigh Burkes with 1930s Treaty cruisers). The S138s are the equivalent of the contemporary British River-class destroyers - both were early 1900s designs of around 5-600 tons displacement. One navy called theirs torpedo boats, the other called theirs destroyers. The German "Grosser Torpedoboote" were deep-water capable - in fact, another term for them was "Hochseetorpedoboote" (which means "high seas torpedo boats"). Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. My "blue-water" definition may be a little rusty, but shouldn't it be able to go onto the high seas? but nice coversation. This is just like how a navy can name frigates and LCS or some LHA/LHD as CV. Quek157 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and they could - the German torpedo boats had no trouble at Jutland, for instance. And yes, these naming conventions can be pretty idiosyncratic. The Japanese "helicopter destroyers" come to mind. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
yeah man, that one is really a LHD. Given it may be F-35B capable, it can rival some of the other smaller CV. the best example for naming. Quek157 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"I see you've found another area to badly misunderstand policies and guidelines"...[edit]

The above comment was not surprising to me given our past interactions. But it's not the best practice to follow other editors to areas one has never edited before to comment, negatively, on their contributions: [2]. It can come across as wiki-hounding.

Who is "badly misunderstands policies and guidelines" is up for debate, as our last content-related interaction was at AfD:List of Stuka aces. You then removed my PRODs from a number of Ritterkreuz list articles (with the edit summary "not what PROD is for"), which were also then deleted at AfD. So it looked to me like someone needed to brush up on WP:N and WP:PROD :-).

Separately, it may be a good idea to leave sneers out of edit summaries: [3]. Instead, if you have a problem with my editing, please discuss with me directly on my Talk page or at an appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

How exactly do you know I haven't edited firearms-related topics before? I happen to have written two of them recently. And you might be interested to note that I'm the #5 editor of the M16 rifle article. I have also been following the current debates surrounding the AR-15 articles from a distance. In any event, if I see you misrepresenting policy on yet another of your personal crusades, I am going to call you on it.
No, it's a simple fact that you routinely misunderstand or misrepresent policy (I will grant that there is room for debate whether your misunderstanding is intentional or not) - see for instance our interaction at Remington Arms, where you incorrectly stated that forced image sizes were "standard". On WP:PROD - perhaps you missed the first line, so I'll reproduce it for you: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion." (emphasis in original). The very fact that we've spent the last several years arguing about these articles is prima facie evidence that such deletions are controversial. Are we sure that smugly suggesting I read a policy you clearly haven't is the best course of action?
Frankly, K.e.coffman, addressing problems with your editing has never been productive, and it never will be. If you (or anyone else for that matter) have any doubt about the truth of that statement, take a look at the very post you made here, where you own goaled yourself on the WP:PROD issue. But I imagine you'll disregard that - we can't be wrong, can we? Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Some observations:
  1. You do not appear to have ever edited the National Rifle Association page, and your first contribution there was to comment on my statement: [4].
  2. Re: PRODs, we've not been arguing about *divisional RK winner list* articles "for years". You may have had articles on individual recipients in mind instead. The articles you deprodded were from this template: Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients. You depprodded them after I linked to the template from the "Stuka ace" discussion; and after a few had already been non-controversially deleted at AfD.
  3. Lastly, re: you "call[ing] me out" on my "personal crusades", I invited you to file such a report a year ago: [5], which you did not follow through on. Until such time, please avoid jeering edit summaries. Carrying on personal grudges and casting aspersions are not what edit summaries are for.
Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. Irrelevant - I already told you I have been following the discussions surrounding those articles for some time, before you even arrived at them. One wonders why you haven't yet addressed your deliberate misrepresentation of the article you cited in that discussion.
  2. Funnily enough, I'm an admin, so I can go look at the edit-histories of those deleted pages. Did you forget that? You started PROD-ing those articles in April 2017, and once I started reverting them, then you started sending them to AFD in May and June. Do we have a fuzzy memory or are we, yet again, deliberately misrepresenting things? And in any event, on what planet do you think that those lists are any less controversial that the bios you've been arguing with Misterbee et. al. for the last several years?
  3. There is no grudge here, just a tendentious POV-warrior. Unlike you, I have a fairly decent grasp on how Wikipedia operates, and you haven't exactly crossed the line the way Dapi did, for example, so there'd be little point in filing a formal complaint. Rest assured that your shenanigans don't go unnoticed, however. Parsecboy (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

S138 talk[edit]

Fine, get over here and talk. DeMatt (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost interview[edit]

MHIST is being featured again. You are welcome to respond here. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I wanted to let you know I mentioned your edits with Factfindingmission on the user's talk page as it relates to edit warring. [[6]]. Springee (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We'll see whether they actually take any of this to heart. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Using Articles as footnotes in my Book.[edit]

Hello to you Parsecboy. I have a question about using Wikipedia articles as foot notes in my book. I have linked the Wikipedia articles and web site pages like German Navy.de in my Warships of Plan Z E book as foot notes so that 1, I didn't have to write out the foot notes, and an end section in the chapters for them to reside. 2, by using the links it provides the reader the option to look more in depth on sub-subjects and descriptions like the Wikipedia articles themselves. Example I mention Admiral Scheer while talking about the ship that was named after him. If someone wishes to see his Biography they can go to that link and as deep as all the links in the article will take them, however it eliminates the need for me to summarize it and or write a 3000 page book with that many sub subjects.

So my question is this. If I format my book, and or books for a hardback edition is it allowable to use the Wikipedia articles for foot note purposes? Can I reproduce parts, or an entire article in a print book, and cite it as a Wikipedia article used for foot note expansion, or would it be viewed as copyright infringement?

My concern here is that I do not wish to plagerize, or violate Wikipedia policy, and or have it seem like the Wikipedia articles are my work. The other course that I can follow is to print the links in the Hard bound book/s and that would allow the reader to look up the links if they wished, but I think in a physical volume that it would be more interesting to have physical information. I consider the reader who might not have access to the internet. I do think that with the articles changing though that this could make a small upgrade issue though. Perhaps I could leave in the link, and summarize with a foot note.

Tell me what you think please. I look forward to hearing from you. Haratio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talkcontribs) 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good question, and one I don't have a completely solid answer to. My understanding is, if you're going to reproduce material from Wikipedia, you have to credit the individual authors to comply with the licensing requirements. I know there are books that are entirely just direct copies of Wikipedia articles (like this one) with no new material, and I think those have a page at the end where they list all of the editors to the articles used in the book. I don't know if that's the minimum requirement, or if you could simply have a note that says something like "This material comes from the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck-class_battleship, for a list of authors see the article history."
I don't know exactly where to go to get a good answer - I might start at the Wikipedia:Village pump and maybe someone there has experience with this.
I'd think it would be better to have the material actually in the book, since it would be kind of a hassle to be reading the book, have to stop and look up an article on Wikipedia, and then go back to the book. So I'd think it would be the best option to find out what exactly your requirements would be to do that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Remington Model 700, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018[edit]

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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 26 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link?[edit]

"here" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the whole thread ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Fixed it, was a different section. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Well don't I feel like a goof. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018[edit]

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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Long time, no sea[edit]

Hey Parsec! It’s good to be back!

I saw that you’ve been working on several articles related to the Austro-Hungarian navy. I know it’s been close to 6 years since I was last on but I just wanted to reach out and see if we could perhaps work together on some articles in that area. You probably remember that the two topics I focused the most on during my time on Wikipedia was A-H and U-boats. I’ve got some sources that may be handy for us, like Sokol’s excellent book on the Austrian navy.

If there’s anything in particular you’re interested in working on feel free to let me know! I’m just in the process of trying to get back into editing after a very long hiatus.

Sincerely, —White Shadows One eye watching you

Hey White Shadows, good to see you back! I’d be glad to have help with the Austrian ships, particularly if you can add material on service histories. I’ve got some good material on the cruisers from Bilzer’s and Sieche’s books, and Pawlik’s book on the ironclads helped there, but it’s all in German so there’s the added layer of translation that makes things extra fun ;)
I’ve been stalling getting to the ‘’Zenta’’s and the ‘’Kaiser Franz Joseph’’s, but if you want to do those, I can work on the translations next week.
Lately I’ve finally gotten around to writing lists for a half dozen or so topics I’ve had done, so if you want, you might take a look at the Austro-Hungarian ironclad list and add what you can from Sokol. I’d be particularly interested in design info on the ships, if he goes into detail on that sort of thing, and if we could flesh out the service histories at all (I’m thinking more in broad terms - like if we could give any general details about any routine training exercises, that sort of thing).
One other thing that comes to mind - the Ersatz Zenta-class cruiser article probably has legs for FAC, so if you want to see if Sokol has anything to add, that would be good. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I've got you covered with service history! I've also got some great resources on naval policy and budget-making within the Austrian government in the lead-up to World War I. Could be useful when writing some longer articles about each ship's class or when expanding a list.
Ersatz Zenta looks fantastic. I think if we were to add in just a few more sources we could get it to FA status for sure. Sokol may very well help push it over the top. Let me see what I can dig up anything to help expand it.--White Shadows One eye watching you 02:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, when you've got a minute, could you take a look at at the article Tegetthoff-class battleship? I've rewritten the entire lead in preparation for hopefully getting it to FA status down the road, but I think it's a bit long for an intro...parts of what I wrote likely need to go to the body of the article instead. If you could help a bit with the editing/moving around/trimming down parts of the lead I'd greatly appreciate it!--White Shadows One eye watching you 20:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

WPMH ACR (Diamonds).png The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for SMS Wettin, SMS Hessen, and L 20e α-class battleship. MilHistBot (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander von Monts[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexander von Monts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom source question[edit]

Hi. Do you by any chance have any sources that can fix the two uncited sentences in the "Aftermath" section of Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom? They basically state that German naval action against the UK mainland consisted only of three raids, and that the operations were designed to force the Royal Navy to dissipate its strength in coastal defence, thereby creating the conditions to allow the smaller German fleet to engage it on more favourable terms. I believe that Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War at Sea by Robert K. Massie may have this covered, but all I have is a Gbooks preview, which does not provide any page numbers. Maybe you have this book, or perhaps another that supports these statements? Cheers. Factotem (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can take care of that - the easiest route will be to just crib the citations from High Seas Fleet - Herwig's book "Luxury" Fleet: The Imperial German Navy 1888–1918 will work just fine. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Grand. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Glad to help! Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018[edit]

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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ersatz Zenta-class cruiser[edit]

I've got more information I'll be adding in the next few days. Vego, Sondhaus, and even Sokol have info on the ships, their specifications, and the background behind them (especially budget negotiations over them). I'm confident by the time I'm done, we can submit this article for an A-class review, get that sorted out, and then potentially move on to an FA together.

Cheers!--White Shadows New and improved!

Any chance we can use this image for Morin's design for the cruiser?--White Shadows New and improved!
Thanks for adding all that material - the article is certainly looking pretty good for A-class and FAC after that. As for the image, we'd have to move it to en.wiki and change it to Fair Use - all we have is the publication from 1978 from Warship International, and it may well have been an original drawing by the article's author - it sure doesn't look like an official drawing from the 1910s to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have that issue and it's implied that all the drawings in the article are redrawn by Sokol from original in the A-H archives. Which would make them derivative works and out of copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you update the image description to that effect? Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Done, but what's its US copyright status? Can't be PD-1923 as it wasn't ever published to my knowledge before the WI article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll need to do some digging, since the Austrian tag doesn't seem to apply either. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of this, presumably the originals would have been protected for 20 years from creation, and thus would have been out of copyright since 1938 at the latest. As such, it would have been out of copyright on the URAA restoration date, so it would be PD in the US as well. Of course that assumes that Austrian copyright law would govern the sketches (and not Hungary or any other successor state), and that whatever the Austro-Hungarian copyright law was (which I have as yet been unable to find anything on) would be voided on the dissolution of the empire in 1918. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hungary and Austria were the only nations recognized to be the official successor states of Austria-Hungary. The other countries, like Czechoslovakia, were entirely new when they were created after the war. I hope that helps, but may I ask why we can't just be safe than sorry and slap a copyright disclaimer and fair use tag on whatever image it is that we want to use for the article? I've seen similar things before for Austro-Hungarian U-boats...it's almost certain that those pictures are in PD but out of caution the file still has a fair use tag attached to it with a note on each one explaining the situation. Again though, images are probably my biggest weakness when it comes to editing so I'm just spitballing here.--White Shadows New and improved!
Yeah, probably the safest route is to just do a fair use claim and explain the situation as best we can determine. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless we want to add in other images of proposed designs of the ship, I think we should submit this for an A-class review. I can add in a bit more budget background about securing the necessary funds and do one last comb over to see if I’m missing any sources but I think we’re pretty much there for comprehensiveness.—White Shadows New and improved!
Yeah, I think we're about ready to go. I'm not sure if other proposed variants would meet the non-free criteria. For other cancelled ships like this, I've tried to find pictures of similar components (like with Mackensen-class battlecruiser or Greek battleship Salamis), but so far I haven't been able to track anything useful down. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Would this picture count though? I was thinking of having something like this in the Ersatz-Zenta class.I think the proposed variants would meet the criteria for non-free use because the goal would be to provide the reader with a visual representation of the differences between each proposal for the ships. I agree with you that it's probably not a hurdle to get this thing to an A-class and eventually an FAC though.--White Shadows New and improved!

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary[edit]

I've just finished my work in this list. Reworked the citations to link to references (boy, that took a long time), added several more categories and the Austria-Hungary portal to the article, and did some minor copy-editing while also adding in info I picked up from Sokol. I think we're good to go to take this list to the next level but since you're the primary contributor I'll wait for your call on that one. The only outstanding issue I can find is that the Lambert citation doesn't have a corresponding reference. If that can be added, I think this is an easy A-class.--White Shadows New and improved!

Thanks, I took care of the missing reference. I don't see any reason to hold off on nominating it - I'll put it up shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! Glad I could be of assistance. I'll be sure to help you go through any outstanding issues folks bring up during the review.--White Shadows New and improved!
Alright, it's up for ACR here - I went ahead and added your name as a nominator. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic. I've added it to my watch list. Looking forward to helping us finally get there!--White Shadows New and improved!
Sounds good - once we have the review more or less done (I like to wait until I have 2 supports) we can put Ersatz Zenta up too. Once you have the Tegetthoff class done at the peer review, feel free to put that up as well - there's no hard limit to how many you can have running at ACR, and if we're doing basically 1 and a half at a time, that should be pretty manageable. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan! I imagine the ACR for Tegetthoff will help me clarify all the problems with image sourcing and whatnot too.--White Shadows New and improved!
Yeah, you'll get straightened out there on images. I don't know if you saw, but I commented on that on Sturm's talk page the other day. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship[edit]

So as you've noticed, I decided to take that article over to my Sandbox2 page to work on it. Unfortunately, there's no way I'm going to be able to expand it to a DKY, which is why I did this whole thing in the first place. Good news is that it's ready to go live. I know you're an admin, could you move the article for me or otherwise point me to the right direction where I can go and request that my sandbox article (with edit history) take the place of the live article?--White Shadows New and improved!

Sure, I can take care of it - I'll splice your edit history into the main space as well so it's not lost. Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, it's all moved over and histmerged. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Need some help[edit]

Greetings. I need some scans. Please check your e-mail, I sent you the details there. Cheers. Torpilorul (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, again. Not wanted to make another section just for another help request. I e-mailed you the details of the matter, just making sure you can get around to read it. Awaiting your response. Cheers. Torpilorul (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Self-published source on vz. 24[edit]

Ok for the problem of self-published source, I won't insist. I saw this website used on other pages so I thought it was "good enough". Enthusiast-made works are sometimes more precise than generalist ones, such as here where it seems probable that Iranian Mausers were named M-1310 rather than Model 1930 Carbine.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that enthusiasts can be more accurate, but they can just as easily repeat nonsense - if we have no way of establishing the credentials of the person who wrote the material, we can't really trust what they write. That's what it ultimately boils down to. Self-published sources can be fine if they're produced by someone we can determine is an expert in the field - one could probably make a strong case that Ian McCollum is an expert in the field, for instance. But the "About" page on the wwiiafterwwii page is essentially blank, so we can't even see who wrote the material, let alone try to determine their credentials. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Novara-class cruiser[edit]

Hey Parsec! I’ve finally finished my (massive) expansion of the Novara-class cruiser article over at one of my sandbox pages. Just checking if you’d be willing to move it over for me. Looking forward for finally getting the last article in the topic to GA status in a bit!—White Shadows New and improved!

Nice work, it's all moved over and history merged. There are a couple of reference issues that need to be fixed, and a couple of the photos will have to go, but it looks pretty good! Parsecboy (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Bismarck[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Bismarck you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alexander von Monts[edit]

The article Alexander von Monts you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Alexander von Monts for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

SMS Tegetthoff (1912)[edit]

Hey Parsec, would you be able to move my sandbox page over to Tegetthoff? I was working in my sandbox to set the ship up for a DKY, but it appears it was already on the DKY page 8 years ago and I don't think an article can be on the DKY page twice.

PS: I'm also again having image issues with finding a good picture of the battleship itself. The existing pictures we have on Wikipedia don't have proper sourcing. Do you have any suggestions?

--White Shadows New and improved!

Will do - and I can help with photos of the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
There are a bunch of photos available here that can be uploaded. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic resource! Thank you very much.--White Shadows New and improved!
Looks like this is a no-go...every single one of these photos is copyrighted. I'll tell you what, I support property rights but I'm really starting to hate copyright laws.--White Shadows New and improved!
They should all be fine, since NHHC holds the copyright, if there is one still in effect, and according to their website, all of the photos in their collection are released to the PD. Upload them with the license tag found here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.--White Shadows New and improved!

Your GA nomination of SMS Blücher (1877)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Blücher (1877) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Blücher (1877)[edit]

The article SMS Blücher (1877) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Blücher (1877) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Bismarck[edit]

The article SMS Bismarck you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:SMS Bismarck for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Blücher (1877)[edit]

The article SMS Blücher (1877) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:SMS Blücher (1877) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of four Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

File:HMS Contest.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Contest.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Normandie-class illustration.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Normandie-class illustration.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Brazilian destroyer Mato Grosso.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brazilian destroyer Mato Grosso.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:French cruiser Ernest Renan.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:French cruiser Ernest Renan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018[edit]

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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

"The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation." Looks like a license to me.Snowdawg (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Both photos also need to be in the public domain in the US, which generally means a pre-1923 publication date. Do either of those photos have a pre-1923 source? Note, creation and publication are not the same thing. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering how both ships were scrapped by 1926 I doubt there are any license holders for either image who are alive.Snowdawg (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not at all how copyright law works. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
So you guarantee the pictures you use haven't been used in any publications with an active copyright since 1923?Snowdawg (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I guarantee that I understand copyright law and you do not. The images I use generally were published before 1923, which means they are in the public domain in the US, or are otherwise out of copyright in the US. It doesn’t matter at all if PD images are used in a copyrighted publication post 1923, since the author of that publication has no claim to copyright over the image in question, just to the text they themselves write. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

SMS Emden[edit]

Hello

Why did you moved this article from SMS Emden? there is some rule on en.wiki? I am asking, because in US Navy ships only one entry is done in this way. PMG (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

First, of the two SMS Emdens, one is obviously the primary topic. Second, ship index pages have been discussed a number of times over the years, and one of the acceptable methods of naming them is the “List of ships named...” format. I actually should have dropped the “SMS” bit so the other Emdens could be included in the index proper. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I’ll do that once I’m home and can edit on a computer. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well - I don't want to go into what is right, and what is wrong - that is en.wiki own way of doing, so ok. But I just want to point that moving articles from one place do second, combining them, and then moving one more time results in such situations (just check names of interwikis). And its rather difficult for non-en.wiki person to handle with such situations. PMG (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but what other wikis do does not (and should not) govern what a given wiki does. Wikidata seems to be handling the situation fine, so I'm not sure what you mean by that link. Parsecboy (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
English is not my first language, so sorry for my problems. You changed definition (scope) of this article from "disambig about all ships that have name SMS Emden" to "disambig about all ships that have name Emden". For me for example means that on pl.wiki this article should be interwiki. You changed what is describing article on en.wiki but you didn't changed place where is connected on on Wikidata (in this specific situation I don't expect that you will know all wikis - so maybe creation of new wikidata item with only en.wiki entry should be sufficient if you really want to change scope of this article). And in this specific case I checked all other wikis and more or less half of them describing only 2 ships with name SMS Emden. My problem with changes as you did (changing scope of article) is that more or less en.wiki is currently pattern for other wikis. And change in scope on en.wiki means that it should be (in my opinion) reflected in wikidata. Usually its that en.wiki have the biggest number of disambigs, and other wikis translate this articles (for example me to pl.wiki) or just copy names of ships (for example couple years ago sl.wiki - example). For last 10 years I translated probably more than 1000 such articles to pl.wiki. So when I spotted that a) there is irregularity in pattern (check Category:German Navy ship names and spot how many articles starts from "list of xxx") b) I am aware that there are thousands of such articles in different categories c) I am aware and in awe how productive you can be (many times I translated your GA to pl.wiki) then I decided to write to you. PMG (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd say the two indices on pl.wiki are redundant and should be merged (to pl:Emden (okręt)). As for Wikidata, that's not really a concern of mine - there's no reason that all other wikis need to be based on en.wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)