|Threads older than 30 days days may be archived by MiszaBot II.
Articles in need of reviewers
Here's our current list of outstanding reviews in need of attention:
These GANs need a reviewer:
Related, but non-BB articles for review
FACs, FLCs, and ACRs:
Clean slate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Crunch time at Awaken the Dragon contest!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted in progress and completed reviews. Added one more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cleaned out completed reviews and added two new ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Updated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
FTC? List of Battlecruisers
Why hasn't anybody nominated the battlecruiser overview topic yet? To me it seems complete. Nergaal (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean this? Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, nvm. I forgot about it. You guys should probably link it somewhere at the top of phase 1 page. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've finally started working on this and am looking for comments, even though it's early days yet. Parsec wrote a decent high-level summary, but I'm not sure how to integrate it, or even if it should be, into my more detailed text pulled from the various class articles. Also wondering if I should expand the background section on the Fuji class with a few more details as it's looking a bit skimpy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no real need to integrate it - I mostly wrote it as a placeholder until you had time to do a more thorough job. I'd add a bit more on the Fuji section (particularly on the reaction to the Chinese Dingyuans, if only because in my most recent lists, I've been trying to cover as much of what's in the intro as possible in the body, so I don't have to mess around with citations in the lead). Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
15th anniversary of WP
Battleship wordmark now available! More info at WT:MILHIST. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Amusing and interesting article
This article by one of Australia's leading defence analysts makes for an interesting read, and makes good use of Wikipedia's warship related content. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Nick - that was interesting to read, and neat to see our content being used, particularly The Land's chart. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Tony DiGiulian emailed me that he will be reformatting NavWeaps.com in a way that will break all current links to it, but likely not for a year. Here's what he sent me:
Right now, there are about 1,600 links from Wiki English to NavWeaps plus more for those Wikis in other languages. The majority of these may all get broken over the next year or so with the exception of any link on Wiki to www.navweaps.com itself which would still work correctly.
The reason for this is that I am considering upgrading the website from being HTML 4 based to being HTML 5 (php/css) based. This means that my webpages will go from having .htm extensions to having .php extensions. This change would obviously break any existing link to my webpages that point to an .htm extension. My first example of a .php extension would be a new main page found here:
The “Contact” and “12”/45 Mark 5 and 6” webpages linked from the above webpage are also in php format. These php pages are not “live” yet, as I am still working out the details of the format and haven’t yet settled on the final form.
In addition, the web designer that I am working with is encouraging me to change my directory structures so as to make it more friendly to mobile users. For example, I use “index_tech” as the directory for my Technology pages, he wants me to change this to be more like “Technology/index.php” which is more user-friendly. Again, this would break existing Wiki links.
I just wanted to give you a “heads up” at this point as I don’t want to create unnecessary problems and extra work at your end. If I decide to go down this path, then I’m looking at a timeframe of something of over a year before the website would be completely converted over as I have 1K+ webpages and it will obviously be a considerable effort to change them all over to the new format.
Sincerely yours, Tony DiGiulian http://www.navweaps.com
RobDuch (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Is there any way to preemptively work around this, like an automated script to catch this or a way to link to internet archive to keep the links we are going to lose until we find where all the information migrated to? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)