User talk:Lyndaship/Archive 3

Re: February 2021

Hello, thank you for reaching out.

Your suggestion to speak with the editor of the note directly is well received but unfortunately the user appears to be inactive.

This page should represent factual information rather than opinion, and the line in question is a mischaracterization. In fact, the CDC made the following statement:

“The CDC, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland Security have been working with the industry to determine the most appropriate public health strategy to limit the impact of COVID-19 at cruise ship ports of entry in the United States.”

With the integrity of this page in mind, I suggest that the line be removed.

Please advise if you plan to revoke the change and look forward to hearing back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkflower 21 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I must ask you if you have a WP:COI as it is very unusual that a new editor's first and so far sole contribution would seek to remove critical sourced information from an organisations article. There is no dispute that CLIA voluntarily implemented a no sail order a day before the CDC would have imposed one. However, the source quotes a lack of action both before and after this including The trade group had drafted a plan to hire a global rescue team staffed by special-operations veterans who would extract infected passengers and take them to medical facilities contracted to care for them “without burden on the U.S. government,” records show. Yet by April 6, the group still hadn’t hired the rescue company, and public health authorities had to scramble to help evacuate critically ill people from ships, records show. Therefore I think the article should remain as is with regard to CLIA's failure on COVID Lyndaship (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources below demonstrate that CLIA has cooperated with the CDC throughout the pandemic and took actions to mitigate the risk of COVID-19. Therefore, the claim that the association did not cooperate is inaccurate. In fact, agencies such as the U.S Coast Guard and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have full authority to regulate and enforce compliance for ships entering or departing from U.S. ports.

https://twitter.com/cheddar/status/1227704132955463681 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE68KCyap18&t=1s https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/02/28/coronavirus-latest-cruise-cancellations-itinerary-changes-cancellations/4890327002/ https://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/Unusual-dynamic-is-on-display-as-lines-send-sail-plans-to-CDC

I kindly ask that you review the material objectively.

Pinkflower 21 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Pinflower 21

The sources you provide reiterate PR from a representative of CLIA and do not give an independent view of the organisations actions or inactions. Kindly address my WP:COI inquiry to you Lyndaship (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am interested in the maritime industry. The ProPublica article provides quotes from CDC and HHS officials that build this entire story. Does that mean that this article does not sufficiently provide an independent view of the situation? Bottom line is that this source claims that the CDC's hands were tied, not that the cruise industry was refusing to cooperate with them. Pinkflower 21 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Pinkflower 21

An interest in the maritime industry is fine but if your editing is related to your employer or is otherwise paid you should declare it. You are welcome to add to the article (providing COI does not apply and you have a source) but not to remove sourced content and certainly not to claim that the source quoted does not say what it does. Also CLIA's employees making statements in a source should not be construed as the source asserting something, ie you can say CLIA president claimed in the NYT that they had co-operated with CDC, not that the NYT stated that CLIA had co-operated with CDC Lyndaship (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Commensurate editing reasons

Hi, I randomly found this edit, by which you removed 1000+ characters with a 2-charater "ce" edit reason. If I were the author of that edit, I'd feel somewhat frustrated at another editor wielding their power and summarily dismissing my work. A more constructive edit would be to include {{cn}} tags for example. -- Dandv 02:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Accept editing summary was inadequate, dispute {{cn}} was appropriate as it was sourced but was plainly unencyclopedic info Lyndaship (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

BNS Ali Haider (2014)

Sorry, I removed it by mistake. Thanks for your kind consideration. Shariar 375 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Britannic-class ocean liner

Hi I see you nominated Abyssinia-class ocean liner for deletion and I’ve recently put this other article by the same creator up for deletion. It sounds like you have access to specialist sources and I may be wrong in thinking the class didn’t exist. If you can find anything one way or the other it would be great if you could add a comment or !vote. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I did check and came up with one non RS refering to them as a class and now another editor has found the contemporary article in the shipbuilder so although I think it unlikely that they were generally known as the Britannic class (class of two ships? more likely just to say sister ship) I can't totally rule it out. As always when someone makes a dubious claim its very difficult to refute it as references say what they were known as not what they were not Lyndaship (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In my view this comes nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. An isolated occurrence of "Britannic class" is just a reasonable normal use of ordinary English, especially for a journalist (and in the example found, the structure of the sentence would make the use of "sister-ship" awkward). I am surprised that it has not occurred more often. Davidships (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of ship captains

Hello, I notice that you have been removing the names of ship captains from DANFS articles. Was there a discussion about this somewhere? Because I'm inclined to think the names should stay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep its in the archives Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_56 and solidified at WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Looking at asubsequent discussion Sponsors should go too from the infobox Lyndaship (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Judi

Hi Lyndaship, please see diff [1]. I don't know if this is random chance, or they are watching us and provoking. It's another gambling site with different key terms. Can you do your magic to find new domains? The page title is Keluaran HK – Data HK, Live Draw HK, Pengeluaran HK-- GreenC 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Happily. I think I have already done a search on most of these search terms, I have five more domains to add at present (1 is large) Lyndaship (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ok those key phrases found no more. I've added the 5 I found previously to WP:JUDI. I noticed that diff this morning, certainly strange Lyndaship (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts on so called Mizar class United Fruit Co. ships

Regarding the flag on Talamanca I think it needs to be somewhere but am inclined not to do a new box repeating stuff just to get a flag image in the infobox. That did resurrect thoughts of some months ago. For some time I've thought that group of ships should go through a DANFS de-emphasis and the apparently made-up "Mizar class" eliminated in favor of the actual class meeting the definition of a series of ships built to the same design for a navy or company. That would be the documented use of "Mail class" for the group by United Fruit. With the exception of advertising I expect they made practical use of that as do naval services as a useful "bin" for maintenance, supply, crewing and such. New equipment? Send to the class where it fits. Those ships spent most of their years as civilian. The only reason there is so much on the military use is the Navy's obsession with documenting each voyage — something making sense for combatants where deployments may have significant action but far less for essentially cargo runs that were no more dangerous or "exciting" than just about every other ship at sea excepting neutrals in those days. The ships were significant in the pre-WW II period as a new, larger passenger capacity and amenity type for a very large fleet serving Central and South America. Some of those voyages had "incidents" or "famous persons" more worthy of mention than some of the stuff in their DANFS voyages but digging them out in equal quantity would take months in news and other archives. What is lost is the flavor of a new, "romance" of sailing to Latin America on new ships of the "Great White Fleet" (Other fleets were encouraging the same trade — a predecessor of today's cruising). That is captured in advertising and travel magazines. In my opinion that is more important to maritime history than the many word about routine in DANFS. That period was the last bloom of "liners" and a burst of interest in Latin America in the U.S. that was reflected in literature and movies of the time as well.

Reorienting those ships and creation of a new "Mail class" article focused on construction history and specifications (deleting most of that from the individual articles), capturing the ship's importance in the culture of the time and distilling the DANFS "voyage, voyage, voyage" recitations and moving the articles to the ship's long service names is a large effort. Too large to waste time with to only get into endless controversies here. You've been "de-DANFSing" commanding officers and cleaning out some of the pedantic DANFS language so the question here. Or is my dislike for seeing ships with significant maritime history and impact just "Navy something" here because it is easy to grab lots of PD words getting away with me? Palmeira (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

While I share your feeling that too frequently the civilian history of military ships is overlooked if the majority of the article is about their military service (albeit a straight cut and paste from DANFs) it's hard to justify retitling the article. Like you I don't have the time (or enthusiasm) for digging through sources to balance the narrative. Sorry Lyndaship (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I get into a complete redo for individual vessels occasionally where the imbalance is glaring or the DANFS focus is downright misleading or even flat wrong. The most recent was Charmian II which was based on two very short, separate Navy paragraphs when there was at least a bit elsewhere (SPs are a target rich environment for that). It is the six United Fruit ships that is daunting because I think they should be handled as a block if done. That is why it was and I suppose will remain way back burner. Perhaps if we are snowed in a week . . . or two. Palmeira (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ship links

Thanks for all your reccent work on the Mediterranean articles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS

Very surprised that you've removed the names of the Master and Mate of the Sea Park (ship). The guideline says they can be included if they "were significant to the ship's history (i.e. playing a substantial role in a major event involving the ship) and are named in reliable sources". They were in charge when the ship foundered in the South Atlantic and the crew took to the boats. Is that not a "major event in the ship's history" in your view. And both are repeatedly named in newspaper reports, in Liverpool and elsewhere. Kahuzi (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kahuzi: This should be on the article talk page, not here, but fwiw I completely agree with Lyndaship's edit. Considering the line she removed simply stated that "the master was Captain W Bell and mate was James Leslie", there was nothing there about how they may have "significantly contributed to the ship's history" other than having those positions. Every ship has a master and a mate. This is why it is better to focus on the ship rather than the crew. (IMHO) - wolf 23:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

No dispute that the sinking is a major event in the ships history but just because someone was the Captain and someone else a crew member at the time does not warrant them a mention by name. Furthermore your edit just added their names without any context, basically name checking or padding of no interest to a general reader. If you add some sourced expansion detailing how these individuals made a difference to what happened to the ship I'll leave it be even if I don't feel it really meets SHIPSNOTCREWS. Fair enough? Lyndaship (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

SHIPSNOTCREWS is overkill IMO. It was introduced to overcome a specific issue, which was the listing of large numbers of ships' captains on certain warships, of which there can be many. Mentions of captains should not be eliminated just because they are not "independently notable", that is just too high a bar, if there's something interesting to say about them, then there's no reason they shouldn't be mentioned, provided of course that the mention is not WP:UNDUE. Indeed when I think about it, UNDUE itself ought probably be sufficient to prevent the pointless listing of captains in ship articles anyway. I'm not arguing, mind that this particular mention should be retained because I haven't looked at the article, I'm just expressing a general principle. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a discussion at WT:SHIPS to review it if you so wish. I would point out that if there is something interesting to say about an individual beyond that he was the Captain once upon a time then there's no objection to mentioning it in the article but what we have is stuff copied from Danfs and name checking by descendants of no interest to the general reader - who cares if Capt Pugwash commissioned the ship other than little Pugwashs? Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, but IMO the name of the first captain of a warship at least should be left in the DANFS articles, because as somebody pointed out a while back, it's actually quite a big deal to get the first commission on a new ship. I'm also generally of the opinion that we should not include less information than is given at DANFS, because if the navy thought the info was notable, it should be good enough for us too. We should if anything include more info IMO.

And yes, I know I should open a discussion at SHIPS if I want the guideline changed, but I'm afraid I just don't have time to tilt at every available windmill these days, so I'm just having a quiet gripe about it here instead. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Presumably if it was they would all be Admirals and not Lieutenants (Junior grade). Secondly DANFS is obviously formulaic always giving who commissioned the ship but never mentioning who succeeded him even if he was booted off the following day for entertaining Seaman Stains in the heads. I know just what you mean about not having the time or energy to try and change some policy or guidance on wiki and although I am honoured that you feel mentioning your concerns on my talk page is worthwhile sadly the Wikierati won't care Lyndaship (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sirocco

You might want to look again at this ship, she was launched in 39.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes as "Le Corsaire" and didn't become Siroco until 1941 therefore dab by first year of name Lyndaship (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the guidelines again I see that you are right. So although I think the guidelines are flawed I've reverted my move Lyndaship (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All Curtatone class destroyers redirect to class page

Hello! I noticed you have added a redirect on the articles for Italian destroyers Calatafimi, Castelfidardo, Curtatone, and Monzambano which leads to the Curtatone class article. I wanted to remove the redirects as it breaks the Curtatone class's template since each ship link leads to the same page as the class link. In the meantime, I will create a draft for each ship once I get the time. I wanted to ask if you had a specific reason for this besides having a relevant-ish link instead of a red one. Thanks! GGOTCC (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If no article for the individual ship exists then a link to the class page is appropriate, if you create the individual ship articles then the redirects will be overwritten and everything is already linked and will slot into place Lyndaship (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Lyndaship! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Cite which creates a download, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Ships Barnstar
		For your diligent assistance at WP:SHIPS and your continuing efforts towards keeping Wikipedia's ship articles 'ship-shape' 😉 The community thanks you! - wolf 07:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

SS Athenia

Hi Lyndaship. I was wondering if you could explain why you think the hatnotes at SS Athenia (1903) and SS Athenia (1922) should point to the set index at SS Athenia rather than, in each case, to the only other article about a topic of that name. I can't see the benefit of making the reader go through the set index when there's only one other plausible target. I'll also add that it's generally polite, when reverting edits that aren't vandalism, to explain why you've done so in the edit summary, even if you think the reasoning's self-explanatory. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SHIPDAB. Ship articles are hatnoted to the SI page even if there are no articles currently in existence for the other ships by that name. If there are only two ships it's not wrong to link them the way you prefer but you changed the existing way solely on your personal preference. Now in this case there are no other ships named SS Athenia (as I think the other three Athenias in the miramar database all have MV as their prefix) but frequently there are other ships bearing the same name and prefix which wiki does not yet have an article for, hatnoting to the SI page means that when an article for one of them is created it all slots nicely into place Lyndaship (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification but I'm not seeing that in WP:SHIPDAB – the final sentence says there's a consensus to have set indexes instead of disambiguation pages for ship names, but as far as I can see neither the guideline nor the linked RfC says hatnotes should always point to those set indexes. Similarly, I'm not sure where you've got personal preference from in what I've written above – the point I made was that pointing the reader to the set index creates unnecessary additional work, which we're required to avoid per (for example) WP:DAB, which says disambiguation serves to ensure that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily. If another article about an SS Athenia is written then pointing to the set index would indeed be preferable, but that's true of every case where there are only two notable topics with a particular name; we don't make editorial decisions on what would be neatest in hypothetical situations that have yet to occur. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that's my explanation. If you trawl through ships: talk you'll see this has been debated before. Either way is acceptable to the project but of course things should not be changed just for the sake of changing and if you look at the myriad of ships articles you will see the usual practice is to link to an SI page if it has been created. Restore your change if you want, we've already spent more time than it warrants discussing it Lyndaship (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Serenade of the Seas

I am confused why my few, new, professional images were removed from the Serenade of the Seas page. They were relevant to the discussion of the layout of the ship, and improved a page with only a single photo of the ship and a terrible other photo of the ship hidden behind cranes. The photos shared were no more numerous than say airport pages with terminal photos. SkyHigh757 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

And if you don’t want five photos of the ship, which ones are acceptable? The centrum, which is a main social area of the ship and part of the design of the Radiance-class? SkyHigh757 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@SkyHigh757: this post should actually be on the article talk page, not here. Also, I sometimes find it helps to suggest alternate edits; in this case an alternate layout of the images. I don't blame Lyndaship for reverting your edit, the images were placed somewhat randomly (if not haphazardly) and overpowered the article. You could suggest grouping the interior images together as a gallery, and then adding that to the "layout" section. That just leaves your one other image, two in total (not counting infobox), and perhaps some slight shifting in content layout, with placement of the two images among the paragraphs, and you could, for example, suggest this layout as a possible solution. Ya never know... (jmho) - wolf 06:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

The purpose of photos is to illustrate the prose and enable the reader to better understand it. None of the facilities in your photos was even mentioned in the prose so were totally pointless. Furthermore, these sort of facilities are on every cruise ship so what's the benefit of overloading this small article with them, nothing special, unique, different or significant about them? The one picture of the ship you added I felt was inferior to the existing pic in the infobox but if you want to change it to yours I'm ok with that although another editor might remove it as it is not just of Serenade of the Seas Lyndaship (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for placing this discussion in the wrong spot. I’ve made a few edits to Wikipedia over the years, but haven’t any discussions yet about edits. I did spend an hour last night reading through the ships’ group page trying to understand photo rules, so I appreciate your feedback.

Regarding none of the photos being relevant to the prose is not true - the paragraph mentions the Centrum atrium, and I had included a photo of that exact space as it is not found in this page or any of its sister ships either. Furthermore, I was trying to place photos of this ship on its page to give it more detail as this class of ships’ articles are poorly written and lacking, and the Radiance-class page has no interior photos at all to reference. I do understand if the photos appeared haphazard - I did not check this time off how they displayed on mobile viewing, so will consider a galley in the future after discussion. Finally, the poor photo I was referring to was located under homeports, but I understand your point. I’ll look for the discussions page to help understand the goals of this Ships group better. Have a good weekend. SkyHigh757 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No apology needed for raising this issue on my talk page, I think the guidance is that the article talk page is preferred so other editors will see it and in theory comment but frequently posts made there will never get a response so to my mind it's fine to go direct to the editor involved. Ok Centrum is mentioned in the text (albeit a passing mention) so there's some justification for adding that pic in the relevant section alongside that prose. You're quite right the Radiance class page is poor and would benefit from your interior photos but only if the prose was expanded to give sourced details of the interior. I'm not fan of galleries (see WP:IG for the rules) and I don't think it would be appropriate on the ship page but possibly would on the Radiance page. Finally yes you're right about the existing extra pic of the ship under homeports, really it should go as there's no need for it, if we had multiple pics I would prefer yours Lyndaship (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnston weight

Howdy, ma'am, I saw the edit summary here, and I have to say I'm in the same boat. 2,700 cannot be correct, but that is what Johnston's DANFS entry reports. I am utterly perplexed.

According to the DANFS, both the Fletcher and The Sullivans weighed 2,050 tons; a recent Osprey publication on the wartime US destroyers says the Fletchers weighed 2,100 tons. Gardiner and Gray say "officially 2,100". Friedman maddens me with "2,276 tons" for Fletcher specifically. I am given to think the author of the DANFS entry for Johnston mistyped "2,100". Advise? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I've got no better references than the ones you've quoted. My lesser sources agree on a displacement of 2,050 for the Fletchers. I guess this changed as equipment was added so Conways 2,100 is not off the wall. I think your supposition about DANFs is possible but a book (Shipcraft-8 by Abbey) previewed online gives 2,050 standard and 2,700 full load. So I don't know for sure but 2,700 cannot be standard displacement Lyndaship (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Trout

Care to explain what the hell this is all about?!. What precisely is it I'm supposed to have done that is silly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly but the idea of trouting you was just so that you might review your comments on the thread and reflect. You said "It really doesn't have a strong devolutionist movement. They'd like to think they are, but they're in a very small minority and most people think they're ridiculous. I say that as someone who grew up there." Well firstly do you recall the petition for devolution in 2001 with 50,000 signatures, considering the population of Cornwall that's a significant percentage. They like to think they are, well doesn't every group like to think they are the majority? What makes you think they are a SMALL minority and as to claiming most people think they are ridiculous beggars belief. Finally just because you grew up in Cornwall (and how long ago was that?) does not mean that you have any idea what the current situation is. Basically your comment is uncalled for and illinformed. Not infringing wiki rules at all but silly in my view and therefore deserving of a trout. Fair enough? Lyndaship (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not. Not sure why you think you know what you're talking about here (as you very clearly don't), but completely uncalled for and therefore insulting. Oh, and incidentally, I still have very close connections with Cornwall, so yes, I do know what I'm talking about. They were a joke when I was growing up and they're a joke now. I'm proud to be Cornish, but I certainly wouldn't give these ignorant idiots the time of day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverting rather fixing (probably)

Hey @Lyndaship, thanks for letting me know a boat can indeed be called a 'she' (a bit weird, not gonna lie), but I couldn't find any explanation to every content changed back.

Was everything wrong or just the pronoun was muddle. If I precipitated myself, please let me know by pointing my mistakes (other than the already pointed out) so I can improve in the future. Best regards, M. (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ships can be feminine or neutral but text should not be changed because of personal preferences. Some of your other changes were good (and some not) but I didn't think they were worth winkling out of the she/it stuff so I just reverted Lyndaship (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL, Just ask for the original editor to make those changes, I would have done with the correct pronoun and whatever you think was not appropriate, specially considering that an update info was added (new ownership) and it's now gone, that is kind of misleading, right?

Thank you, M. (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

CURIOSITY

Just Informing you, but you probably know very well. The Term 'She' for Ships.

This came in the beginning of them, mainly in Middle Ages, Vikings and after in 1700 Handle worldwide, when most ship constructors and drivers, today known as captains, and their crew were only men and alone in huge trips without women. Because this fact they relation its 'home' the ship as a 'wife' or a feminine follower or lover and then the ship were for them their women. In fact so, most also put Mermaids at bow, women figures in front and other females figures. This is the reason why still today for a seaman seeing his home, the ship, most time during year at ocean, as well as for fishermen. It is like loving my car, and for me it is my lover woman. Indeed like the term as being feminine for the vehicle vessel and see no strange or odd or comic relation to it. Regards and Have a nice Day. Do not know if in the long Discussion this explanation was included, but it is the Truth. --188.109.177.148 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I've heard this explanation before Lyndaship (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, then thanks supporting, Regards and good luck in your life. --188.109.177.148 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, as you is online, then please approve this rewrite, thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Urbanoc#GMB_-_Please_Approve --188.109.177.148 (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

SS "City of Benares"

Ma'am I'd like to know what is wrong with my sources on the SS City of Benares page. If you have read Children of the Benares by Ralph Barker then you will know that the length is in fact 509 feet, not 486 feet and 1 inch. Brochures also state this (one of them can be viewed at https://www.peoplescollection.wales/items/1610991) The book says, quote, "Propelled by two coal-burning Parsons turbines developing 1,450 horse-power, driving through single reduction mechanical gearing, she was 509 feet in overall length, 62 feet 7 inches in beam, and had a moulded depth of 43 1/4 feet." That literally says the length and depth (both stated in the article are wrong) Barker also says that, quote, "of whom five (the chief stewardess and four nurse/stewardesses) were women." I'd say that states quite clearly that there were in fact five women among the crew. I am also in possession of the complete passenger and crew list so I know exactly how many people were on board, how many were women and children, how many people died, and how many people survived. Barker also says that the stewards on board were Portuguese Guyanese. Regards,Seafarer 1940 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

My problem is that you are changing figures without changing what they are sourced from. The problem with the length is the figure in the existing text is between perpendiculars, your source gives the length overall, ideally you should find a secondary source which states that figure (hec.lrfoundation.org.uk is WP:PRIMARY). Moulded depth is not the same measurement as draught- I'll sort the infobox shortly. I have no interest in the genders of the crew but I would caution about accepting anything Barker says without corroboration (some of the other books used as sources are even worse in accuracy I suspect). I would also suggest you read WP:OR with regard to the crew lists you have. I have explained why I think Barker is wrong on the talk page of the article with regard to Portuguese Guyanese. I previously removed the whole section titled Final Crossing as I consider it all excessive detail of no interest to the average reader, another editor has restored it so I have let it be for the present Lyndaship (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay Thanks! I will check up on some of those sources, and make sure that they are right. I'm planning on adding some info to the sinking section (I have some information on what happened to each lifeboat). Regards Seafarer 1940 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So sorry! I was checking up on the Children of the Benares book to see if I got something wrong. He does say that the catering crew was from Portuguese Goa, not Portuguese Guyana as I thought. I totally mixed them up. I did also find more information about the ship's early career in a Shipping Today Magazine, I will be adding that to the article shortly. Regards, Seafarer 1940 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well sorted! Lyndaship (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

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) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

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) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

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) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes: ship status > ship fate

Hi Lyndaship. For some time, usually when editing ship articles for other reasons, I have been regularising the entries for these two fields on the basis that, almost without exception, a ship has only one "fate" - its final dispositions by loss, scrapping etc. in my view, non-final changes (eg transfer to another operator or change of use, especially where leading to another ship-career infobox), where relevant, should be in "ship status". This is entirely consistent with specific advice at Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career. I have noticed recently that, in your otherwise very welcome infobox clean-ups, you have been moving entries in the opposite direction, for example, today, with this difference. Is there reason for this? Davidships (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. We are mostly in agreement. I think status represents something which can change and fate is something which is final. If a ship has changed owner the status of the ship under the earlier owner will not change and is therefore final so should appear as a fate. Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career gives no guidance on the use of multiple career infoboxes but Template:Infobox_ship_begin#Custom_fields shows an example for USS Bang in which both owners sections have a fate recorded. On the specific example you gave on reflection I think the Redpoll fate should be Transferred to Columbia University. Lyndaship (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that we agree at all. "One ship=one fate" principle is clear from the guidance: Rule of thumb: "Is the ship above the water and intact?" for status, and Rule of thumb: "Is the ship permanently below the surface, or in pieces?" for fate. I think that the USS Bang is a bad example that doesn't follow the guidance (I don't know which was written first), and that multiple infoboxes are a bit of a red herring. In principle each ship would have one "career box" (they broadly describe life events, compared to the ship characteristics section), but we introduce multiple boxes when showing data in one box would be too complicated, it is just for ease of comprehension, and we only repeat the fields which are pertinent. Every box doesn't have to have a "fate". Davidships (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh we do agree about most things but ok on this specific instance I see we don't. The guidance would have to be written after the template and its documentation was created and indeed it was - 2011 and 2007. It's clear that the consensus of editors over the years has been to create multiple infoboxes and to record the final status as a fate. I would point out before the rule of thumb you quote it says This is usually when something pretty permanent happens to the ship, like sinking or scrapping. I think we can include sold or transferred to these examples of sinking and scrapping as the ship is no longer available for future use by the previous owners. Anyhow I'll hold off changing any more statuses to fates if you want to take it to WT:SHIPS to get a consensus Lyndaship (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Ardmore (1909), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

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) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

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) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

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) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:JUDI

Hi Lyndaship, hope all is well with you. It's been a long time since I worked on Judi. So I am currently processing the last list of domains you had identified, in the "Domains not yet processed on enwiki" list. Would you be able to find any others that are new? I depend on you to find them, but, if you want to tell me how you do it that's fine too either way. Maybe there is no method other than just searching for strings. Thanks! -- GreenC 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. Yeah sorry, lost interest a bit with wikipedia over summer (as I always do) and then got distracted onto other things when I came back. I've had a look at it now and again but haven't done any work on it. There are a fair number of domains usurped since I last added to the list - I'll get started on them over the next few days. It is indeed just searching for strings Lyndaship (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! I should finish the current batch today. -- GreenC 16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

My father served on USS Cybele

My father, Jesse Taub was 19 when he was put in charge of all the electrical equipment on the USS Cybele. He was present on the USS Cybele at Tokyo Bay at the signing of the Peace Treaty ending WWII. AvesTaub (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your fathers service. We only mention individuals in ship articles when they are notable (ie have a wikipedia page or are likely to have one in the future) or performed a major role in a significant event in the ships life as detailed in independent verifiable sources Lyndaship (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Italian ship Gabbiano

The article Italian ship Gabbiano has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't link to a specific article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Starman2377 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And a barnstar for you too!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is long overdue for all the work you have done cleaning up my errors and getting things right that I left wrong. Acad Ronin (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, edit conflict on the ship IP. I think I'll just leave mine, as we are both saying the same thing ... I cannot fathom (no pun intended) what they are up to ... it's most odd ... cheers DBaK (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Indeed strange but I think it's vandalism, keeps on adding 10 years to dates Lyndaship (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow! That's really quite bizarre. What happened to good old-fashioned vandalism of the "Steve is a ****head" variety? Cheers! DBaK (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Confused

Hi. This edit summary bears no relation to the edit you made? Mark83 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Have another look with a search for Rolls-Royce on the diff. The other edits are AWB general tidying Lyndaship (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The Rolls-Royce correction made no material difference to how it appears though. The vast majority of the edit was other tidyup, therefore the edit summary could have been better is my point. Of course I do recognise that all the changes were constructive. Mark83 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It does make a material visual difference, before it said incorrectly Rolls Royce, now it displays the correct name Rolls-Royce with a hyphen. Any other changes are auto inserted by AWB when performing a desired change. The user can switch off the function or make it show all changes performed in the summary box but I find that messy and reduces the visibility of why and what you set out to do Lyndaship (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

RV Falkor

Hi Lyndaship,

I approach you in regard to the above mentioned article because I have read your nickname sometimes. I am not too familar with the procedures in the English Wikipedia and that´s why I would like to point out that the RV Falkor does not belong anymore to the Schmidt Ocean Institute. Instead of this it´s name is now Gaia Blu and it´s sailing under the italian flag, but still doing oceanography. I have updated the infobox as best as I could but I do not know how to deal with those renamig and redirection issues. May you can have a look at it or steer it to someone who cares on this topic (research vessels). Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You can move it by clicking on the more button at the top and it will show move. Choose the title you desire and leave the move associated talk page and leave a redirect behind ticked and click move page. That should sort everything. Any problems message me Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lyndaship!

Happy New Year!

Lyndaship,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

MV Conch

Sorry for mistakenly editing your page rather than the article (and then messing up trying to undo that first mistake in a comedy of errors), but please assume good faith rather than vandalism. Unfortunately, I sometimes struggle with Wikipedia software. Please don’t bite the inexperienced.

I do however think that the original information is notable and enhances the article, and I would ask you to reconsider your position. It is after all evidence of the shipwreck, historically important figures and may be of interest to both researchers and family historians.

I do appreciate your contributions to this area of Wikipedia. Nd1667 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I did think it was an error initially given your edit summary but I was not so sure when you repeated it. Anyhow no lasting harm done. I don't dispute that the Conch lifebelt is interesting (although I'm not so sure it's really notable). As you probably noticed I amended your U-47 edit to retain it. However, I don't think the detail belongs on the shipwreck page as it's just a list comprising name, date, tonnage, build year, crew fate etc and not interesting extra info. You're welcome to take it to the talk page per WP:BURDEN. On an aside although the video supports the claims I do find it dubious in that Conch was sunk by another sub so how come Kretschmer had the lifebelt? Propaganda time possibly Lyndaship (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Orsa-class escort destroyers and 'common-use' terms

You corrected the article and noted "Conway's calls them Destroyer escorts". That is true and that is very fair. I have no grievance with your revert.

Conways also calls German MTBs 'S-boats', which is, among those in the naval historical enthusiast community, a standard term for them since at least the 1990s. Conways is a trusted and heavily-cited resource. Yet Wikipedia's article about these craft is titled 'E-boat', because war veterans wrote their accounts using this term, it became a popularised term for a while and is still sensationally used in titles of various works, albeit in reference to the wartime emergency rather than in a technically analytical manner. We have moved past that, surely. I note that the best available reference online regarding these craft and their history, the excellent s-boot.net, uses the anglicized term 's-boat' in its English-language version and is all the better for it, boasting great authenticity and a neutral tone, rather than the 'them and us' which 'E-boat' conjures up.

What I'm saying is that your revert makes sense, calling the article on schnellboote 'E-boat' ('E' for 'enemy'), rather than 'S-boat' makes no sense, particularly when we are also talking about Yugoslavian and Spanish boats of that type. (The Italian boats also have their own article, entitled [CRDA 60 t motor torpedo boat] rather than 'Italian E-boat' (or even 'MS boat' to be fair); you get my drift.

I ask, as a reasonable person, for your help in reviewing this article title.

Anyway, thanks for reading my plaintive plea. (And also thank you for considering my other edits on this article to have been helpful and constructive). 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E0D0:C1C8:4DD9:2169 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Would have had no problem if you quoted a source for the Italian name in the article.

I would prefer a title other than E-Boat too but under WP:COMMONNAME it's the correct one Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

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) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

HNLMS Alkmaar

This is a "disambiguation" page that doesn't disambiguate anything, as none of the articles it lists actually exist. I believe that for a disambiguate to be valid, at least one article has to physically exist - disambig pages containing nothing but red links aren't valid. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No it's a set index page which as a list page may contain red links.Lyndaship (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

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)

Happy New Year, Lyndaship!

Happy New Year!

Lyndaship,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

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)

PLEASE REMOVE RR DAWN

At page of rolls royce motor cars remove the dawn, the wraith, both are discontinued since some https://www.kolesa.ru/news/rolls-royce-proshchaetsya-s-kabrioletom-dawn-vypushchena-poslednyaya-partiya 178.4.50.68 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

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)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

USS Arctic other uses hatnote

Hello,

I was confused why you reverted my edits on the pages listed on USS Arctic (disambiguation). As per WP:INTDAB, all intentional mainspace disambig links must link through redirects ending in "(disambiguation)". Could you please explain? Purplemountainman^talk contribs 23:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Sure, an other ships hatnote is not a dab link. It links to a set index which is a list page Lyndaship (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Purplemountainman^talk contribs 16:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reason for revert?

Your edit summaries were blank. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SHIPDAB would be a good place to start and then look up what is a set index pageLyndaship (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave whatever a set index page is to you, but referring to a single minesweeper as "other ships" is clearly wrong, per plural. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SHIPMOS Lyndaship (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the part that says one ship should be called "ships"; do you? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep WP:SHIPMOSHAT Lyndaship (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It says that may be used. Not that it must, or that another (more accurate) template may not. There's no harm in calling a minesweeper a minesweeper, and I'd like you to accept this (no objection to adding a year in parentheses, if you want). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it says may not must. However there are very few pages where it's not. As on this page it was the established way of pointing to the other ship it should not be changed solely because you think the other way is better. Using the other ships template has two advantages to my mind, firstly it provides a link to the SI page which could otherwise be an orphan and secondly it shows to the reader that there were only the two ships by that name - by using a redirect hatnote there could be more which do not have an article Lyndaship (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the idea that one ship is not "other ships" solely what I think. My compromise still links to the same SI page, describing the same other ship, preventing the same hypothetical orphaning. It's also quite clear through suggesting the only one other ship of this name in the only article named after such a ship that no more than two existed. Anyway, thanks for explaining. The final call is yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Blank template parameters

See Template:Infobox ship begin#Removing extra fields – It's generally a good idea not to remove fields — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That also says Also, if a section is repeated (to show multiple periods in commission, for example), fields that are inappropriate to duplicate can be removed if desired. and the usage guide says Fields that are not relevant to a particular ship or class (for example..... or are made redundant by other fields (such as the British/American spelling variations) should be removed from the article. Lyndaship (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

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) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Packet boat

Hello - On a discussion about renaming Category:Packet (sea transport) you mentioned that "(UK) Packet ships and (US) packet boats are very different." Would you be willing to elaborate on that on another discussion taking place about renaming Packet boat? Whether you agree or disagree with the proposed naming, I would appreciate your opinion on the difference between a packet ship and a packet boat.

I see that you differentiated the two by labeling them "UK" and "US." My understanding is that boats were for inland and coastal waterways and were used in both Europe and North America, while ships were for the trans-Atlantic trade.

Kindest regards, Gjs238 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm going to refrain from commenting on the packet boat article title change as I feel the whole idea of combining packet boats and packet ships in one article is wrong. They might have had a similar name but I think that's the only similarity, the former were used in the US (and possibly European waterways) for mail, the latter carried UK Government despatchs across the oceans. It's not my field of knowledge. I would suggest you post at WT:SHIPS Lyndaship (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

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) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox error fixing

Seeing you fixing those error , thanks alot.

Judging from the changes by AWB , Kriegsmarine's U-boat articles after U-240 got no infobox error right ? Comrade John (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't come across any after U-240 but my search criteria was incomplete. I think it's unlikely there are any beyond U-240 but I might have missed some below U-240 Lyndaship (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Guess that's all below U-240 , how do you know there are not any beyond U-240 , are they fixed once ?--Comrade John (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't for sure but a lot after U-240 were on my AWB run and none were found. Looking at the history it looks like this error was introduced on 11 October 2015 in an AWB run and from U-241 the editor responsible noticed and changed the settings Lyndaship (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok , have to be cautious on setting AWB.--Comrade John (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)