Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Main talk   Showcase   Phase I   Phase II   Phase III   Phase IV   Phase V   Portal  

Articles in need of reviewers[edit]

Here's our current list of outstanding reviews in need of attention:

These GANs need a reviewer:

Related, but non-BB articles for review[edit]

FACs, FLCs, and ACRs:


Added a few.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed a few.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion on Commons[edit]

Hello! Please take a look at mass deletion request on Commons. As precedent it may be potential disaster to many valuable battleship pictures uploaded by many authors. --Maxrossomachin (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


@Parsecboy: Should the redirects that don't deserve their own article's be labeled as such in their notes section? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: - it might be worth doing to avoid confusion in the future. Anybody else have any opinions? Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me, although some already have that(?). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the idea is more to clarify that unfinished ships don't generally warrant articles - this has come up a number of times recently. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, makes even more sense then. Maybe we should add a hidden note to those too? Or is that too much work for little payoff? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia[edit]

An editor new to OMT has been greatly expanding the section on the Kirov-class battlecruisers in the List of battlecruisers of Russia, so much so that I think they're dominating the list as there's much more information in that section than in any of the others. Other problems are that he's not matching the citations as used in the rest of the list, heavy use of web references, and a number of minor MOS violations. I've reverted his changes and posted an explanation on the talk page, but I invite all interested editors to weigh in on the subject there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

30 minutes of special Iowa tour.[edit]

Exploring OFF LIMIT Areas WW2 Battleship USS Iowa Brad (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on early Brit dreadnought class articles[edit]

I've started working up St Vincent-class battleship and would like some advice on how to handle summarizing the activities of the early British dreadnoughts. The Jellicoe book more than adequately covers the activities of the Grand Fleet before Jutland so I can easily fill out that time on the individual ship articles, but summarizing all that can easily be done in a single sentence. Similarly, they didn't actually do much during Jutland so there's not much that can be added, even including a summary of the Action of 19 August. And they did even less than that once Beatty took command as his orders were to conserve his ships and not expose them to submarines and mines. While I expected that the technical stuff would be the majority of the class article, I didn't expect this big of a disparity. So what's a fellow to do? This is going to be a problem for all of the early dreadnought class articles up until about the Iron Dukes as most of them didn't do much of interest. Even Warrender's ships (2nd BS?) are only good for a couple of extra sentences since they never actually engaged the Germans. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to restructure how the section is divided. Instead of a Jutland sub-section, you might just have one for the war, and just do Jutland in one paragraph. Maybe write up the section and we can take a look to see how it can best be formatted. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
PS: if you're looking for photos, the ones the NHHC has are available - for instance this one of Vanguard. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about the NHHC photos. See how it reads now, as all I've got left to do is add a photo or two. Do I have too much detail, too little, or both (hopefully in different sections)? Is the organization reasonable, should I add a post-war header, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally looking good now. Coverage looks appropriate to the article - not too little not too much. I would prefer to have a Jutland section personally, otherwise "subsequent activity" looks odd in the hierarchy on its own. Also I would argue for *not* abbreviating Battle Squadron (looks very weird to my eyes). Finally I wouldn't use the term "in reserve" for the Grand Fleet during the War. It's not exactly wrong (and would be 100% correct on land) but with ships "in reserve" is usually a ship with a skeleton crew that can be readied for war in weeks/months... The Land (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that the Jutland sub-section is a necessity, what with the map and all. I understand your point about reserve not being common terminology for naval units, but I can't think of a better way to describe the Grand Fleet's late-war role. Do you have any suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for redoing that whole bit; it reads much better, The Land. I've already used it in the Bellerophon-class article and plan to do for the rest of the British dreadnought class articles. BTW, feel free to drop by on any of the current ACRs or FACs and offer an opinion, even if you don't feel like doing a full review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)