User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not copy to Commons

Hi,

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

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

SMS Elbing

Greetings,

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

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

Congratulations from the Military History Project

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

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Advice

Good morning,


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

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

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

SMS Schwaben

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

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

Graf Spee

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

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

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

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

April 2023

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

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

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

Old vs new place names

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

O-class battlecruiser (planned) of the Kriegsmarine status

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


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

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

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the Camaeleon-class/Camäleon-class

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

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

Qingdao

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

File:Commodore_Perry,_Pamunkey_River_MET_DP70753.jpg

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

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

Greetings and...

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

Hi again. Thanks for your message. Please note that I did not revert, but restored a stable version. --Technopat (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Huh - can't figure out why the template isn't playing nicely with the bold text - I've been updating scores and scores of articles I've written to use the lang templates and haven't seen this before. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, it was this bit: (literally 'War Navy') - the last three apparently confused the system about which set of three apostrophes to pair for the bold text. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I was actually gonna remove that bit (not sure that it's relevant on that particular page, at least not in the intro) but decided to leave it till later 'cos I didn't want to interfere with your troubleshooting. --Technopat (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
No, and it's also not a great translation - but there really isn't one. The thing I can't figure out is why that particular set of apostrophes worked fine before, but the template broke it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Methinks you're young enough to have too much blind faith in technology... Technopat (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ha, I'm not that young - the thing is, it is pretty basic coding. Something in the template must have confused the pairing of triple apostrophes (which is what I can't figure out, since it's the only thing that changed, but it works just fine everywhere else, like here, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry! Can't help... I'm still trying to catch up with the advances in typewriter technology: that golf ball innovation blew my mind! So getting to grips with even basic coding is waaaay down on my to-do list. Good luck! Technopat (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Haha! After doing a bit of experimentation in my sandbox, I think the five apostrophes forced mediawiki to read those pairs together. From what I gather, it doesn't read the code left to right (which is what I had expected). The text works as intended if you leave all five apostrophes, with or without templates, but when you drop down to just bold text, it gets confused about how it pairs the sets, with or without templates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Little late, but remember, in a pinch, <b> </b> is also accepted. Generally I find the problem tends to be a missing closure somewhere very distant, and the change causing the error correction to act differently. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
In this case, I suspect the problem was "(literally '<nowiki/>''War Navy'''" - that's read as '[italic switch]War Navy[bold switch]. If you were trying to put War Navy in single quotes, the correct way is {{'}}''War Navy''{{'}}, escaping BOTH before and after. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, that makes sense - and that's a good idea on the <b> </b> bit. Thanks Adam. Parsecboy (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Never mind; it turns out the LoC just lays out information in a really stupid way. It's the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. One shouldn't need check subject tags to see that. Also, I've partially restored it. I think I got most of the stuff that's visible without zooming in a lot already, except for the left bit of writing (I'm usually pretty happy to leave writing, but I do ask that people either put it on level or have it be something that doesn't look like it needs to be level like a signature. Maybe it's level to the horizon and I didn't need to, but it's intrusive so screw it, it's going. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Ha, it might amuse you to know that I had once taken a stab at restoring that image myself (never got anywhere with it, of course). I think I had talked with Durova for advice and played around with the image a bit, but got busy with grad school stuff, my first kid was born, and it got lost in the shuffle. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Ooh. That is not a great first image. The left hand side alone is ridiculous. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 11:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
That probably had something to do with why I never finished it! Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Always thought that a good first restoration was more on the lines of File:Andrew_George_Scott,_alias_Captain_Moonlite_-_Original.jpg - something which needs one technique (healing tool), not too often, but will teach you to use it, and to consider things like what size and hardness is best for each spot. Kinda wish I hadn't restored that one. But there's plenty like it, if you want to have a go sometime. I can keep an eye out. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 11:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep it in mind - but I don't have as much time as I once did, unfortunately. Much of my editing used to be at work, in my old job, where I had a lot of down time. That's less the case in my current job. A lot of what I do these days is maintenance of existing articles, like my current (very slow) campaign to update stuff to comply with MOS:FOREIGN (like this), though I do still write articles from time to time - French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1877) is a relatively recent example. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've swapped in a slightly better image. Double check it's not an obvious misidentification; if not, we're good, and I'll add it to the list to-do. [1] might be rather good for showing the keel. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yup, that's a good image - thanks, much appreciated! And that model photo would be nice to have. I tend to forget about Gallica (and the NHHC collection usually has at least one image of a given ship, so I stop looking). Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
File:Model of the French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1877) - Original.jpg Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! (Though the Agence Rol template isn't working - I'd fix it, but I don't know what the right template is). Parsecboy (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, good - I should tuck that away for future use. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Just as an update on Justice: Two days in, probably about 6-10 hours' work; still just the left edge is going to take at least another day, probably two. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ha, it would take many days for me to cobble together 6-10 hours of work, and I imagine trying to cobble it together in 15 minutes here, half an hour there, would make it even slower going. Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It's starting to approach done. Took me about 15-20 hours for the left hand side, at 400% zoom. The rest is going a lot quicker. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It definitely looks much, much better than when you started! It's funny, zooming in on the original version gives me flashbacks to when I tried to fiddle with it a decade ago! Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I put up a before and after of the left side at the FPC. Really wish I had been there to advise back when you did it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
By the way, the lead image on your user page... this is the original. I think I might need to at least do enough work to deal with it being, well, contrasted up so much that it looks much worse. You get weird edits sometimes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 21:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's quite an impressive difference!
I imagine you see all kinds of things from people who don't quite know what they're doing. I'm a little embarrassed to show you this hatchet job (from the original)! Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
That's not as bad as you'd think: It's hard to make an image like that look good, and while you could have curved it a little better, it's not a bad attempt.
A good rule of thumb for levels adjustments is, if it's an improvement on the original, and you've made it clear it is an edit, it's a good edit. If it isn't, go back to the original. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 22:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
True enough, I suppose - and at least it's easier to make out than the original. I would like to eventually do some image work here and there, if I ever find the time to be able to do it - if that day ever comes, and we're both still around, I'll give you a ring! Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Mind, um... I did have a little bit of a go. It's never going to be a featured picture, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 22:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Still much better than it was! Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, got inspired to write an article for The Bugle on the back of our talk here, so that's something Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 00:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Nice! I'll have to check it out. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/August_2023/Op-ed if you want a preview. I keep adding to it, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 01:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I had read it earlier yesterday (I creeped in your edits ;) and there's more in there now. I did notice you've got two "Google it"s in there now ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Dangit. Thought I cut that. Probably did, then added it back while trying to balance it with the Signpost copy Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Haha, I do that kind of thing all the time. Just yesterday I had one of those at work (I write training and policy stuff for my department). There, at least I can blame it on server problems with the shared documents we use! Parsecboy (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

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

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

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

Brandenburg-class battleship

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Schichau (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Essex-class aircraft carrier templates

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class cross with Oak Leaves 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross with Oak Leaves for French battleship Charles Martel, French battleship Liberté, List of protected cruisers of France, SMS Yorck, and French battleship Justice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Revert frenzy

Apols, I forgot to ping you. Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I happened to be on at the time and got the ping when they reverted my edits. I've got my eye on the articles, which may need to be locked if they persist in hopping IPs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Graf Spee Image

What's wrong with the license? It's quite clearly listed as public domain by the Kiel archives. And why would a data-entry error for the archive (1934 vs. 1936) exclude a public domain image of a subject from being used on the page? Podlesok86 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the Stadtarchiv released it under CC0 1.0? And what evidence do we have that the Stadtarchiv has the ability to license it?
As for the details of the image, it is literally impossible for Renard to have taken that photograph. Renard died in February 1934, and Admiral Graf Spee was not even launched until June of that year, let alone completed and in the condition in that photo. So clearly someone else took it. To return to the point above, did that person publish the image somewhere? Do we know who it was? Did they donate the image to the archive, or did a negative just come into their possession? Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

File:SMS Sachsen NH 65749.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SMS Sachsen NH 65749.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking to particular guns in infobox ship

Hi, Parsecboy, I'm doing some pages about the first Krupp Ring Kanone used on ships. As I link to these guns in infoboxes, I see quite some resistance from users that want to hold on to the automatic conversion of inches and cm's in the infobox, e.g. at SMS Friedrich Carl (1867). I believe you created a reasonable solution at that page. However, in reality the caliber of the 21 cm RK L/22 was 20.92 cm, so it should be 8.2 in instead of 8.3 in. Not that important, but for the 24 cm RK, the real caliber was 23.54 cm. Therefore, I think it better to use the name of the gun and do calulation of the caliber in inches or cm by hand, based on the real caliber. Also, a substring like RK or SK in the name tells a lot about the actual power of built-up gun. If it's RK, it is first generation Ring Kanone and therefore not that powerful, because it could not handle that much explosive force.Grieg2 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a complex issue, to be sure. I think this comes down to is the inherent tension between accuracy and providing a fairly high-level overview of a subject consistent with this being an encyclopedia. The challenge is always how do we present accurate information without getting too far down into the weeds? A case in point, I sometimes see figures given to the third decimal place (Norman Friedman tends to do this in his books on US warships, for instance), which is excessive for what we're trying to do here. So I'm not all that concerned about the difference between 8.2 and 8.3, or even 9.4 and 9.2. To the average reader, those differences are more or less meaningless, and if they are interested in further details about the guns, they can always click the link.
The other problem is, it's fairly common for guns (large and small) to have rounded nominal calibers, but different countries use different methods to determine what the nominal caliber is (and this can change over time). For example, .38 Special and .357 Magnum are identical in all but case length, but the former uses the rounded diameter of the case mouth to find its nominal caliber, while the latter uses the un-rounded bullet diameter as its nominal caliber. This problem already creates an apples to oranges comparison between ships of different navies (which I don't think should be encouraged because of the complexities, but readers will do it all the same), but introducing "in most articles we use the nominal caliber but in a few, we use the accurate bore diameter" only complicates things further.
I don't know that I'm necessarily right - you could make the case that I'm simply biased toward continuing what we've always done because we've always done it that way. It's probably something that should be discussed by a broader group (probably at WT:MILHIST). Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough reaction. You're right in that we should consider what we want to achieve with the infobox on the ship page. This is probably to give the reader a good indication of the power of the armament of a ship. However inaccurate, caliber and length go a long way to achieve this. Indeed, if this has a link to a page about the gun, the interested reader can get the details there.
The discussion is then about how to represent the link. Should it be caliber + length or the name with cm or in, or some combination? I also made pages like RML 16 cm No. 3, 28 cm A No. 1 gun, and RML 7-inch Armstrong Gun which all lack the length in their name. Ideally, the length in 'L/' should be added to the name as represented in the infobox like you did at SMS Friedrich Carl, allowing quick comparison. It is probably indeed a matter of discussing it in a broader group with consideration of some examples.Grieg2 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I think I'll go start a thread at WT:MILHIST to see what others think about the issue. We probably need to adopt a standardized approach, so things aren't done haphazardly. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 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

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

" doesn't like PD-Because"

Can you explain this? I have been confused by the large number of tendentious FfD nominations from this user -- is this the result of some kind of dispute elsewhere?? jp×g 18:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Look on their talk page a few threads up, about NHHC images, which I discussed with them last month. After abandoning that discussion, they've started getting rid of the templates, to no real improvement in how the image licenses are described. But I'm not inclined to revert them, given that nothing is really changing, and stopping them from tilting at windmills isn't exactly a good use of my time. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

File:SMS Irene NH 48218.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SMS Irene NH 48218.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 03:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of SailboatData and Sailboat.Guide

Hello. I have started two discussions on the reliability noticeboard on topics which you have previously discussed. If you would like to join, the discussions can be found here:

-- Mike 🗩 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

dead link

Sir,the third reference link of the entry SS Silesia seems dead.Could you update it？（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Silesia）When I click the link,the site automatically goes to the official website instead of the document.Looking forward to your reply🙏🙏 Jack hema (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not Parsec, but  Done. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, much obliged. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review of galley

I have two follow-up questions regarding your review. Can you have a look at the FAC? Peter Isotalo 04:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the note. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Iagudiil

Can you check the launch date for Russian ship Iagudiil (1843) please? Article currently states she was launced 4 days before she was laid down! Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Good catch - it was right in the body, but must have been a typo in the box. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

French battleship Bouvet

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for the heads up - the article should be in pretty good shape, but I ought to check through Robert's book that was published the year after the article went through FAC, as there may be a few details that can be added. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I could try and improve the lead image. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b6918154h/f1.item.r=bouvet%20cuirass%C3%A9.zoom or - if you think it's the one visible from the deck of the other - https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b69299610.r=bouvet%20cuirass%C3%A9?rk=42918;4 ? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 18:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Adam, that would be great. I think the first one gives a better view of the ship (and the second one is Bouvet - I uploaded a much smaller version many years ago at File:Bouvet in the Dardanelles.png (which has a source that confirms the identity). Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
December: story · music · places

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2020): "The French battleship Bouvet was one of several older French and British battleships to meet a violent end during the Dardanelles campaign of World War I. I wrote an early version of the article many years ago, but as a number of other French battleship articles that have graced the FAC page of late, a new book published in 2017 allowed me to improve it considerably."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

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

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

TFA blurb - SMS Prince Adalbert

G'day Nate, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901). I'll pop it on the nom list for 12 January 2024 once you are happy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, PM - I think it looks fine as is, nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

SMS Preussischer Adler

At SMS Preussischer Adler#Design, you set out the background re the 1845 Preussische Adler, with a cited para. May I ask whether the detail of rejection of the earlier vessel is covered by Hildebrand or Gröner, or both? I am contemplating a small article on this ship, which had an ever longer life than the SMS. Is there any suggestion that the rejection was instigated by the Prussian Navy in order to have a more war-capable vessel waiting in the wings? Davidships (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's in Hildebrand et. al. - I don't recall exactly what they said, but I can get you the exact text later in case it would be useful (but I'm out of town at the moment). Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. That would be doubly helpful as I will be able to cope with an extract more easily than obtaining the book (due to my rudimentary capabilities with German - 60 years since my last lesson at school). Please send by email if convenient. Davidships (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
No problem at all - my German isn't great either, but my last German lesson was only a little more than 10 years ago, so I'm not quite so rusty! Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@Davidships: - sorry, I just realized I had completely forgotten about this. I had a look at Hildebrand and there really isn't anything in the text beyond what's in the article. All they say about the rejection is "Der Bauauftrag nach Liverpool mißglückte auf einer Probefahrt nach Kopenhagen erwies sich der neubau als ungeeignet und wurde zurückgegeben." They don't mention anything about the Prussian Navy having any input on the ship contract. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks fine - although modest it's still a useful addition in that dissatisfaction revealed itself before reaching Stettin. Much appreciated. Davidships (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I had a look in Sondhaus's Preparing for Weltpolitik as well and unfortunately no mention of the ship before the Second Schleswig War. Good luck with the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have a German contact looking for more 19th century sources - optimistic, but still at the collecting phase. The PA seems to have had a long commercial life, but with few "incidents", dammit. Davidships (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd think that's where you'd have to go. I've run into similar problems with other ships of a similar vintage - if they weren't involved in some sort of accident, you won't have much to write about. I've been lucky with Hildebrand to cover the activities of German warships, since they go into much more detail. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 7 December 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevada and super-dreadnoughts

I'm not so sure this is a correct revert. Historians and primary sources both described the Nevadas as being super-dreadnoughts -- is there a specific reason we wouldn't want to say that anywhere in the article? Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Ed. I have a few objections to the term (at least in Wiki's voice):
  1. It's a propaganda term, and not much more. We also don't use pocket battleship to describe the Deutschlands, for similar reasons. The dreadnought/pre-dreadnought distinction is significant and tells the reader a lot about the ship; dreadnought/superdreadnought doesn't.
  2. It's also fairly squishy and arbitrary; all it basically means is "we put bigger guns on this ship". Where's the cutoff? Is it 13.5? Are the Bretagnes not superdreadnoughts? If they are, were the Cavours and Andrea Dorias converted to superdreadnoughts in the 1930s? And why does the jump from 12-inch to 13.5-inch warrant a new name, but 13.5-inch to 15-inch doesn't? Or 16-inch ships? I recall seeing a contemporary magazine several years ago that described Arizona as a super-superdreadnought (or something equally stupid) - should we use that? Which brings us back to the previous point; if the sole reason to use it is that this specific propaganda term caught on, but "ultra/mega/hyper-dreadnought" didn't, that's not a great reason to use it.
  3. Even if we accept that the term is valid, it's the same type of pedantry as those who insist on calling them "two-gun turrets", not "twin turrets". It means next to nothing to the average reader. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Propaganda or not (I personally feel like it was a marketing term to sell the increasingly expensive ships to reluctant politicians, but that's splitting hairs!), pocket battleships are at least mentioned in that article. ;-) To me, the term has been used often enough generally, and directly to describe these ships, that it needs to be called out in the article somewhere. It doesn't have to be in the lead, particularly if we'd want to source and qualify it. We also don't need to use hyperbolic terms that one ... I'm guessing not esteemed historian has created. The difference here is we're talking about a term that was bandied about both then and now by a not insignificant number of people. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Are propaganda and marketing terms mutually exclusive? :P
I don't object to a note, if you want to add one. And Friedman actually calls the Nevadas a "'post-Jutland' ship", differentiating that from "super-dreadnoughts", so technically the IP that insists on adding it is wrong ;) Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I apparently completely missed this message. I suppose I was differentiating between propaganda for jingoistic purposes and propaganda for marketing. :-p I've added a footnote on this with a reference to the NYT. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I figured you were busy. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 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)

Steam frigates and smaller vessels

Hi, Parsecboy. In the 19th century there were many types of, and labels for, wooden steam warships. Most of the Wikipedia pages for the separate types, like Steam Corvette, Steam sloop, Screw corvette etc. currently redirect to Steam frigate. The Screw sloop page is an exception. I think that these redirect links to steam frigate are not all helpful. Stating that a vessel was e.g. a steam corvette is not helpful if the link to steam frigate makes it difficult to find out what a steam corvette was.

The screw sloop still has a separate page. After adding to its content, I now doubt whether there should be separate screw sloop and paddle sloop pages, or that there should be a single steam sloop page, which is now a redirect. I am wondering where I could start such a discussion?Grieg2 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Grieg - I agree that it's not ideal; one wonders if it would make more sense to retarget Steam corvette to Corvette#Steam_ships (and expand that section significantly - but that article is pretty badly unbalanced in favor of WWII and post-war corvette classes in general). Gunboat#Steam_era is a fairly healthy section already, though Sloop-of-war doesn't have anything on steam power at all. Arguably, Frigate is long enough that splitting Steam frigate off makes sense, but I don't think that would necessarily apply to Corvette, Sloop-of-war, etc.
I'd think WT:SHIPS would be the best place to discuss this further, as there are others better-versed in the subtleties than me. It might also be worth adding a notice on WT:MILHIST for those who aren't members of both projects. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Parsecboy - Thank you. I now have an idea how to handle this, i.e. first expand or create a 'steam' section on Corvette, Sloop-of-War, Gunboat. Then have a main page like Steam Frigate.Grieg2 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a good approach. I sometimes do the opposite direction (like when I'm building a detailed article on a ship and then have to summarize it for the class article) but I think it probably makes more sense to go the route your proposed in this case. There may not be enough content for some of them to warrant sub-articles, but the sections you build will at the very least be targets for the redirects. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Gerda! I hope you've had a nice time around the holidays! Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, and thank you especially today for SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901), introduced (in 2015): "Another WWI-related article with a major centenary coming up, this being the anniversary of the ship's sinking (which was the worst loss of life for the German Navy in the Baltic)."! - I have a DYK on the same page, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! I've had a bit of a run of good luck lately, Bouvet and now Prinz Adalbert. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
my smaller luck on the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Huh, I had never heard of the viol before! By no means am I an expert like you, but classical music isn't entirely foreign to me - funny that there was an entire class of instruments I didn't know existed! And neat to be able to write an article on a subject you can have a personal connection to - I don't generally get that (though I have visited the subjects of USS Torsk, USS Constellation (1854), and USS North Carolina (BB-55), all of which I wrote). Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places
Thank you, - learning new things is one of the great gifts here! - Yesterday was a friend's birthday, with related music. I'm on vacation - see places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting biography to read. I spend much of my time reading about the death and destruction of war, so it was nice to take a break for someone who dedicated their life to helping others. I hope you enjoy your trip! Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Horsepower nerdery

Hi Parsecboy; I have been struggling for over a decade with the minor but significant variance between imperial and metric horsepower and the constant confusion between them. Not only do editors here mix them up constantly, but there is no standard abbreviation for metric hp and no good way of distinguishing the two without using foreign acronyms like CV or PS. In addition, sources also frequently mix them up, as it is such an easily overlooked distinction. I feel downright traumatized when someone writes that a German car had 115hp, then someone helpfully adds a conversion template to read 115 hp (86 kW) [{{cvt|115|hp|kW|0}}] and then some German-leaning fellow changes that to 86 kW (117 PS) [{{cvt|86|kW|PS|0}}] and so on ad infinitum until all numbers become meaningless. Sorry about the rant; my question was actually about the French battleship Bouvet:

Back in 2019, you added mention of this ship producing 15,462 metric horsepower (15,250 ihp) during tests, and I am wondering whether the source you had didn't simply state 15,250 hp? I often see sources using hp interchangably for both varieties, so I suspect that the actual output was 15,250 metric horsepower (15,040 shp; 11,220 kW), which would also line up with earlier references to 15,000hp. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mr.choppers - Jordan & Caresse are clear that they're using metric horsepower. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Hi Parsecboy,

On the Battle of Berlin page, an unregistered editor under the name "Seahawk-2023" has made a lot of changes (brought to my attention by the experienced editor Kierzek), some of which do not match the content of the sources. Many of these may have been "good faith" assumptions but they since they've introduced some errors, I was wondering if you could restore the page to Jan 6, when you made your last edit. Thanks. Obenritter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Obenritter, sure, I can do that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you gentlemen. I just don’t have much time right now for such things. If you could have a look at Battle in Berlin that would be great. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Will do - might need to go through their contribs, I guess. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Sir. --Obenritter (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you indeed. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy to help! Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work to remove deleted portal links from articles. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! It's definitely not because I have a severe case of edit-countitis, or was on a work call that could have been an email! Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

File:French battleship Richelieu in New York.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:French battleship Richelieu in New York.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

SMS Ägir

Hey, I thought I'd let you know (in case you didn't already) that there is a small article about the storm that sank SMS Ägir here, at the site of the Swedish Museum of Wrecks. There is another, longer article about the incident, here, unfortunately only in Swedish. I was considering adding a summary to the article, but seeing it is a Good Article and you seem to have been most engaged in writing it, I thought I'd start by giving you a heads up. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yakikaki, sounds good to me! If you need help with anything, I'd be happy to lend a hand. By the way, I went and split off that part of the article so you wouldn't have to worry about how the rest of the paragraph was referenced. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, great - I'll make a small contribution on this, then. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Done - feel free to change/remove, of course, so that it fits in with the rest of your work if you wish. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me - I made a few minor tweaks for punctuation and such. Nice working with you! Parsecboy (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know if your interest in maritime topics extends further than Sweden, but I've been working on a few articles on some Danish ships from the 1880s/1890s lately and there's not a ton on them in English. I have come across a couple of Danish sources (and have cribbed what I could from the da.wiki articles on them) but they aren't available in the US, even if I wanted to feed the text through a machine translator. HDMS Iver Hvitfeldt (1886) is one, if you're interested in taking a look. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi again. Yeah, Danish maritime history sounds like fun! Danish is sufficiently close to Swedish for me to be able to read it without problems. But are they printed sources? The problem for me would be that I live outside Scandinavia and won't easily access them in that case. But if they are online I could take a look. Yakikaki (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I was hoping you lived in Sweden (or somewhere else in the area) - the chief one I came across is Vore panserskibe 1863-1943, which is not online as far as I know. I could probably pester User:Rsteen (since I believe he has the book, or at least did some years ago when he wrote the da.wiki articles), but he isn't active much on en.wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
You pinged me sir. Hello Parsecboy. You are right, the Steensen book does not seem to be available online. You have the option of buying it as a ebook for around three dollars/euro, but that would of course require a certain level of enthusiasm for the subject. Anyway, the link is here: https://www.saxo.com/dk/vore-panserskibe-1863-1943_epub_9788793560109 (all in Danish, but a trusted site). My own copy of the book is hidden away in storage (a consequence of living in Italy), but still, I may be able to clarify simple issues without it. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Ha, I hadn't intended to ping you - I had assumed that because people took the trouble to make templates like {{ping}}, that linking somebody's name wouldn't do that. I guess you learn something new every day.
Thanks for the link - $3USD is a steal, if you ask me - I was thinking it would be long out of print and cost closer to $300! I also got Steen's book on cruisers, as I was thinking of doing those as well, and at that price, I couldn't pass it up. It will be interesting to see how much help I need with a translator - there are a fair few cognates between English and German (which isn't too surprising). Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy to help. There are some of Steensen's other books among the neat selection of scanned maritime books here: https://marinehist.dk/?page_id=2386 (most of the books in Danish). Cheers Rsteen (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, there's quite a lot of material there! I may well have a much larger project in front of me than I had initially thought when I started on HDMS Herluf Trolle (1899) a week ago (but that's a good problem to have, of course). Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WVHA (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Type VIIC tonnage

Do you have Groner? I have a suspicion that it's 769 long tons. Common problem on European warships of that era, Conway's uses the abbreviation t and many editors have assumed it's tonnes Lyndaship (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I do, though Groner usually provided tonnes and LT. I'll check later today. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I had a look, and 769 tonnes is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks for checking Lyndaship (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No problem at all. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevada-class

Is there a reason you're so against adding the "super-dreadnought" into the opening sentence? The preceding New York-class and all of the following standard-type dreadnought battleship classes have it. I don't see a reason why this particular class page needs to have a note instead unlike all of the others. The somewhat unprofessional reasons given for the edits seems like this is a personal thing. GansMans (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

See here. And I find your personalized commentary to be rather unprofessional, but what are we going to do? Parsecboy (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
So hostile so quickly. You get away with a lot here, and I think you know that. And it's why you react like this often. But we're not doing this again. Just thought I'd see what the fuss was about. GansMans (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
You decided to personalize the discussion with your first post here; you were immediately hostile. Is it any wonder I pointed out your hypocrisy? How else did you think I'd react? With sunshine and roses? If you can't have discussions without immediately behaving this way, you aren't welcome on my talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The last sentence offended you? I'm sorry you took it that way, it wasn't my intention. It was simply an observation. I wanted to get a grasp on the situation. If this is how you're handling it consider this the end of the discussion then. GansMans (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
On what planet is an edit summary like "not an improvement - please stop edit-warring over this" unprofessional? And on what basis do you have to assume I have a personal grudge or something? Add to that your first edit in a month is to come to my talk page to criticize an edit-summary of mine. That you and I have a history also does your commentary no favors. You'd have done better to have simply asked a question and dropped the editorializing. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I was more talking about the "not helpful", "sure it is", and "nope". Those aren't really valid excuses for reverts. What if I did that? GansMans (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
How are they not valid reasons for a revert? The IP has alleged something (equally succinctly, and without basis, you may have noticed), and I am plainly disagreeing with their characterization. While you may not be satisfied, I am not aware of any length requirement for an edit summary; they aren't even required at all.
Nor am I particularly inclined to waste my time explaining something to someone who clearly has no interest in discussion. It's very obviously the same person who has been attempting to shoe-horn their edit into the article, but they haven't bothered to visit the article talk page (or mine). As you have seen above, Ed had a question about it, and I explained my reasoning there. The IP has made no attempt to discuss at any time in the last 4 months; at this point, their behavior is purely disruptive. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Because it's not very constructive, that's all. There's about 6 better ways of going about it. But I didn't see the earlier conversation, hence why I asked, even though I knew I'd probably regret it.
I disagree, once again there's no reason this particular page needs to be different than the others other than personal preference. And since it's yours and it's been there, it's the status quo so it's not changing. But there's a note, it's been discussed, and a "compromise" has been reached. I'll leave it at that. GansMans (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
When you’ve encountered this exact scenario dozens of times over 18 years of editing, you may begin to understand my lack of patience for it. I am not going to cater to people who are only wasting my time.
Setting aside the argument that all articles should be consistent for an moment, exactly what other articles in the series of American battleship articles have them listed as super-dreadnoughts? None of the articles I’ve written (which is almost all of them) use the term. Parsecboy (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Every other standard-type class article (besides Tennessee which you changed 2 days go) opens with "The x class was a class of y-amount super-dreadnought battleships built for the United States Navy." Again up until you changed Tennessee, they all had super-dreadnought written right in the opener. I guess its fine if you're going to change the rest, but we can't keep having these "exclusive" articles that have your version of what you want. They all change, or they keep the uniformity. No reason we need an in-between. GansMans (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
USS New Mexico (BB-40) was a battleship in service with the United States Navy from 1918 to 1946.
USS Mississippi (BB-41/AG-128), the second of three members of the New Mexico class of battleship...
USS Idaho (BB-42), a New Mexico-class battleship,...
USS Tennessee (BB-43) was the lead ship of the Tennessee class of dreadnought battleships built for the United States Navy in the 1910s.
USS California (BB-44) was the second of two Tennessee-class battleships built for the United States Navy...
USS Colorado (BB-45) was a battleship of the United States Navy that was in service from 1923 to 1947
USS Maryland (BB-46), also known as "Old Mary" or "Fighting Mary" to her crewmates, was a Colorado-class battleship.
USS Washington (BB-47), a Colorado-class battleship, was the second ship...
USS West Virginia (BB-48) was the fourth dreadnought battleship of the Colorado class...
There is no rule that articles have to be consistent. But if anything needs to be standardized, it's opposite of the direction you want. But the difference between me and that IP is that I'm not going to impose my preferences on an article I didn't write. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parsecboy/Archive_46&oldid=1216691553"