User talk:Sturmvogel 66

Guess it's time to fill it back up? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, make it so, Number Two!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The article Bréguet 960 Vultur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bréguet 960 Vultur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for placing first in the December 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest with 93 points from 10 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a grand total of 1,193 points from 231 articles throughout the year. An incredible output and an amazing effort. Congratulations! Zawed (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello buddy, I left a reply to you on Talk:Gozo Phoenician shipwreck. Can you please review it? Thank you ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you see my comments from 8 January?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sturm, you reserved Talk:Battle of Rethymno/GA1 nearly four weeks ago. Any idea when its number might come up? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The article SNCASO Trident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SNCASO Trident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I thought it was interesting that you removed the edit that "All woodwork on the USS Dictator was done by Ariel Patterson. You said it was trivial. However, I think it is not trivial because Ariel Patterson was a shipbuilder and had his onw sawmill giving him the reputation for his work as a shipbuilder and wood provider. Patterson and John Ericsson worked together on the steamer Ericson as well as the Dictator. Perhaps you just need a little more information to incorporate it into the article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but generally subcontractors aren't discussed in ship articles as they're far too numerous to be mentioned in the sources. At any rate, infoboxes are a supposed to be summary of the important facts about a ship, if you have sources supporting your addition, feel free to add them to the construction part of the main body. If you don't have any reliable sources, please don't bother.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, about "an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for HMS Princess Royal (1911)! - DYK that my song of defiance which you had the courage to review, finally made it to GA but wasn't on DYK for Bach's birthday yesterday? - We miss Yoninah so much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed your adding the MILHIST tag - I'm not sure it fits, since it was only intended for civil use? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. It happens to the worst of us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll preface this that I'm not going to change it, I just wanted to explain why I thought "entered into" was better. The rest of the sentence describes things that people did to the ship (or things that happened to the ship): it was built, launched, commissioned, etc. It wouldn't make sense to say "it was entered service", but "it was entered into service" reads fine. I suppose it's minor... it's just how I read the sentence. HarryKernow (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside from being old-fashioned, my thinking was that it assigned agency to the ship itself, which is always a problem when writing a ship-focused article. Best to try and minimize that sort of thing as much as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I didn't fully expand on my first thought, but I was under the impression that just "was ... entered"? assigned agency to the ship, while "was entered into" doesn't. HarryKernow (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest with 37 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing refbegin/refend markup from bibliographies and other "lists of works", and please reinstate those you have already removed. I understand you feel the use of this template is deleterious to those with poor eyesight, but that would be a fault with the template itself, not the usage of the template. Addressing any fault there should also improve the readability of the automatically generated references generated by reflist. Stgpcm (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What virtue does the template have other than to shrink the size of the text and to set the number or width of columns? And that last usually doesn't work on my large monitor, so what value does it have?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a large monitor, and it works just fine (and looks much better than without it). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been a bit of a puzzle for me as to why mine sometimes displays it and sometimes doesn't. I wish it worked more consistently on reflist as I'm always bothered by all the additional whitespace that is usually present with my short citation format. I'd be content if both reflist and refbegin didn't change the text size at all, but am a bit of a loss on how to push for that change to be adopted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The primary virtue of using refbegin is to mark the section as a list of works. Its secondary virtue is to display such lists in a consistent style. A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described at Template:Reflist#Font_size.

The automatic decision on whether to use multiple columns is - bizarrely - based in the number of entries in the list (20 or more).

On Skylon (spacecraft) the columns option should probably be set, to prevent a mismatch between the references and bibliography, but visual format isn't my thing. Stgpcm (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A simple header of Bibliography, Sources, etc., which is required by MOS:APPENDIX, is a far more effective way to show the transition to a different section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described at Template:Reflist#Font_size." This sop to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY doesn't actually work on some browsers, unfortunately. But since the check box exists, no one seems to cares that it might not work for the readers who need it. I guess Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY is only there for people with disabilities who can afford the right computer for the options to work? The rest of us with bad eyes can suck it. BilCat (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your efforts on behalf of visually deficient readers such as myself. Your efforts are much appreciated, and perhaps someday will yield fruit. Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? You have the same problem with reflists I presume? It is unfortunate that the feature doesn't work as designed, but the solution isn't removing the logical markup, but fixing the issue in the template/browser. Have you raised the issue on the Template_talk:Refbegin page?

would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. As to raising the issue at that talk page, no, I haven't. From discussions I've had about other templates with the same, this appears to be a larger issue affecting my browser type. Those discussions went nowhere fast, so I stopped pursuing it. BilCat (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of the refbegin/ends that I've been eliminating have no parameters set at all, and I've never even seen the parameter for setting text size. I can only conclude that editors think that it's some sort of requirement and/or they prefer the look of the reduced-size text. Which puzzles me because virtually every book bibliography I've ever seen uses the same font size for the main text and the bibliography. I understand that people are used to seeing citations and footnotes in a smaller text in most every book and journal, but so what? They do it to cram more information onto a printed page, but we're not paper and why reduce text size when it's not needed and penalizes editors like yourself. I truly do not understand the pushback that I've gotten on this issue, and not just from Stgpcm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur. As important as Accessibility issues are said to be to Wikipedia, I don't understand why the standard font sizes aren't the default, with the smaller sizes optional. We know different browsers can have issues, so why make it more difficult on the people who have difficulties instead of the other way around? Large fonts can be annoying, but most people with good eyesight can still read them comfortably, while the reverse is definitely not true. BilCat (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Nord Gerfaut you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord Gerfaut for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The article SNCASO SO.8000 Narval you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Are letters to the editor (which is what the talkback column in Air Enthusiast is) really Reliable sources? Should they be added as references?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I should think so since they're approved by the editor. If he knew that they were incorrect, they wouldn't have been published. Most of the ones that I'm adding are corrections or clarifications, somethimes by well-established authorities like F. Gerdessen or Lennart Andersson. That said, I'm adding them so that editors know that they're there. If somebody's expanding the articles and doesn't think that they're useful, they can be moved to further reading or deleted entirely if superceded by more modern research, provided that they've actually been properly evaluated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you are now edit-warring to force the inclusion of these sources. This is unacceptable - you do not own the article and shouldn't be spamming dodgy sources into articles just to assert that ownership.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this on the Reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Letters_to_the_editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There's an ongoing AFD discussion that may result in a small amount of content from another article being merged into the aftermath section of the Milliken's Bend article, so it might be best to wait on the GA review until after the AFD is settled. Hog Farm _Talk 19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, lemme know whenever that gets resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so that's all been resolved with the addition of two sentences into the article, so it's ready now. Hog Farm _Talk 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Sud-Ouest Espadon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Nord 2200 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord 2200 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could I ask that when creating new sections at the end of articles that you move the Commons link into it as that is where they are meant to be located. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to remember, but I usually only open a section at a time, so forgive me if I forget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could I ask you please once again to observe the existing placement of Commons links after adding sections? Guidance for the location is at Template:Commons category/doc. The established styles of reference section headers (names and levels) should not be changed without good reason in any case per MOS:NOTES, many forms are acceptable. Leaving these lower sections undisturbed would also avoid the existing Commons links moving up the page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll look through my recent edits and move the commons link to the last section. I generally don't mess with the headers unless they're merely bolded instead of in proper header format. If that's the case I regard them as fair game.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I have corrected about 10 instances today, I am very busy in RL so can't check further. Changing to level 2 headers (or adding them) is creating new sections, level 3 would not do that.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some formatting cleanup on that one. I'm attempting a total rewrite of that article, and I'm not familiar enough with the process of writing ship articles to get the desired formatting down perfect. Hog Farm _Talk 15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, she's always been on my to-do-list, but I've been deterred by my middling command of the sources on the overall campaign, although I did just buy Chatelaine's new Defending the Arteries of the Rebellion so I can work on more of the Confederate ironclads. Wanna split the work? I'll take on the ship specifics, you deal with the situation and we'll work together on the overlap between the two. I dunno if you've got access to Smith's book, but I do, and it's got all the latest research on the Arkansas. Gosnell's book is a classic, but I'm uncertain how well it holds up and I no longer have it at hand.

Take a look at any of my ship FACs to get an idea of how I typically like organize things. First a brief intro of the situation, then the details of the ship itself, followed by construction info and service. Given that she was built in a warzone, I'm not sure that that structure is actually appropriate for Arkansas. I can work with the article's current structure, though, if you think that that's preferable. Lemme know what you think, although I need to do some reviews that I've promised before I can start serious work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea for a collaboration. I've got access to quite a few books about the Vicksburg campaign. My use of Smith was simply from the rather limited Google books preview, although I think my father might have a copy of it. My opinion of Gosnell is mixed. Some parts of the book are Gosnell's own research, while parts of it are mainly narratives from primary sources. Unfortunately, the content about Arkansas is mainly based on the writings of Captain Brown and two of the ship's lieutenants. That's useful for some things, but I'd rather not have to use Gosnell quoting Brown as much as I've had to. As to structure, the wreck section doesn't warrant its own section. I've got a book about the submarine Hunley somewhere that talks a bit more about the wreck of Arkansas, but all you can really say is that a group of people looked for it, used some old writings to track it down, and found it under a levee. There's just not enough that can be said to support a separate section for it. Hog Farm _Talk 16:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd suspect that we can rely more on Smith and, hopefully, Chatelain, than on Brown and Gosnell, as I'd expect the later writers to have reconciled the differing primary accounts as best they could. I think that the easiest thing to regarding the ship's actions is for you to write it according to what you've got and then I'll go through my sources and point out any discrepancies that we need to resolve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll probably get through it this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've made it through the Miller, Barnhart, Gosnell, and DANFS. I'll need to go back and change where I used mdy dates instead of dmy dates, though. Looks like the infobox also needs a touchup and the lead probably needs some expansion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll flesh out the description today and make sure that it matches the infobox. Then onwards to Smith and Chatelaine!

Hog Farm Smith says that the army volunteers came from "three Missouri State Guard 1st Division artillery units: Company A, McDowell Battery (Capt. Drake McDowell, Capt. Samuel S. Harris); Company B, Richardson Artillery (Capt. E.G. Richardson); and Company C, McDonald’s Battery (Capt. Robert McDonald). Under Captains Harris and McDonald, with Lt. John D. Parsons of Co. C of the 5th Infantry Regiment and Lt. John L. Martin from Co. F of the 4th Infantry Regiment" citing Scott K. Williams and James McGhee, “Missourians Aboard the C.S.S. Arkansas,” Sons of Confederate Veterans, Missouri Division, Missouri Units, http:// www. missouridivision- scv.org/mounits/cssark.htm [accessed December 1, 2009]. It is over a decade old, so I haven't altered your text, but thought you should know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have McGhee with me when I pulled the Harris bit from Harris's Missouri Battery (1862). I've got limited access to McGhee's CSA unit monograph again, and he also mentions McDonald's Battery upon another check. However, neither Harris nor McDonald were MSG units at this point; they'd already entered Confederate service. Gosnell calls them cavalry, which is not supported by anything else and is contradicted by him quoting Brown calling them artillerymen. So it may just be best to refer to them as vague Missouri artillerymen. Hog Farm _Talk 17:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Arsenal VG 90 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arsenal VG 90 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo file states: “This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.” Photographer died in 1930. Orpy15 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Irritatingly, that's not exactly how it works. French copyright of 70 years was still in effect when the US adopted the URAA in 1996, which extended the term to 95 years in the US. So you can use it in 2025, not until.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! Then I will patiently wait until 2025. Orpy15 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest with 41 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm just posting to let you know that List of battlecruisers of Russia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 2. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Damn when did your talk page got shorten? I really believe I've missed this. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Turn of the year, turn a new leaf, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• How isn't this world news? They had to broadcast this. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• <snicker>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen the usage stats? Why cap something that sources mostly don't? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I will go ahead and fix those again if you have nothing to add. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude, it's a proper name. How it is any different than Battle of New Orleans or King of England? Proper names all. End of story.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence shows that the Battle of New Orleans came to be treated as a proper name about a hundred years ago. The King of England evidence is not so simple, but does suggest more often capped than not. As I linked above for the siege of Leningrad, sources paint a very different picture in that case. And our MOS:CAPS says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. So we should use lowercase there. Your assertion that it's a proper name doesn't pass muster. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I see no value added to Wikipedia in your crusade here and would rather you devote your considerable energy to something more generally useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You can't know how much that means to me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I dare say that your continuing efforts tell me exactly how much that means to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the same style, with links to citations. Why do you want citations to be less functional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Because they use templates in cites, which I despise. Your preference for such links doesn't allow you to override WP:CITEVAR, so please stop changing things to your preferred style. This sort of behavior is exactly why CITEVAR was created. I don't mess with existing styles in the articles that I edit and you should learn to do the same, regardless of whatever improvements in functionality you feel are worthwhile.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And your personal dislike of them does not overule reader-friendliness. RFC created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, but I doubt that you'll like the results.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Leduc 022 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leduc 022 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The article SNCAC NC 1080 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SNCAC NC 1080 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Does a naval vessel's career begin before or after it is commissioned? 2. Is a vessel commissioned before or after it is constructed? Have a think about that. Pyrope 02:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's why I've entitled the section "construction and career" so it flows quite naturally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But it doesn't. The active service of a naval vessel only starts after it has been handed over to the operator by the builder. The construction of a vessel is part and parcel of the shipbuilding process, following its specification and design, not its career. Hence that information rightly sits alongside the rest of the information about the physical object, not alongside information about the use to which that object was put. Pyrope 02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. Troubles with labor and material shortages that often trouble shipbuilding programs have no part in the design and description section. I see the construction information as the beginning of a ship's career, not least because trials often reveal major problems before the ship can be handed over to the navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with the fact that the section you are calling "Design and description" is actually a description of its design and specification. Using the word "description" there is spurious. Right, now re-read your above comment again. You state yourself that the construction information covers everything that happens before it is handed over. That may include changes to the design as a result of changing specifications (very common in large vessels that take years to build) or items that are only brought to light in sea trials. Are you then going to start talking about these specification changes there, in the career section? Surely changes in the design are better discussed in a section dealing with its design? Fundamentally, the design and construction of a vessel is a single process involving a fair degree of back-and-forth and ongoing adjustment. The construction of a vessel isn't isn't beginning of its career, but the end of its build. Pyrope 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

See French battleship Brennus--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)cal structure.

What's your point? What you seem to be telling me is that a small group of editors (you?) have written a lot of articles with poor logical flow. Classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. That article also mixes fundamental details of design and construction of the vessel in the same section that contains detailed discussion about manouvers and deployments. These two do not sit comfortably together, and it still splits out details of the physical configuration of the vessel from the main section that covers this subject. Pyrope 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A question for you, Pyrope: why would it make sense to arbitrarily split part of the historical narrative of the ship, then insert a technical description, and then resume the narrative? You seem to be asserting that narrative and technical aspects should not be mixed, unless you want to. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response, it's been a busy week. I am saying that the narrative and technical shouldn't be mixed, at the very least until the vessel has entered service. (Mid-career refits are up for another debate I guess, although I would tend to keep them in the technical section with only brief mention in the career section, but I digress.) Up until that point you are talking about the design and construction process (singular), not the vessel's career. For a human you wouldn't include their family history and schooling under a "career" heading, therefore why would you do the equivalent for a ship? Pyrope 23:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I certainly understand being busy. But what I don't understand is why you are arguing that the narrative shouldn't be interspersed, except for when you want to. The design process is quite distinct from the construction process; why should they be discussed together? Yes, designs are sometimes changed during construction, but they are also frequently changed over the course of a ship's career; what's so special about the commissioning date that anything before somehow doesn't count as narrative, but everything after does?

Your analogy is not apt; what you're actually arguing is to have a section about a person's physical characteristics (i.e., how tall they are, what color their hair and eyes are, etc.) that also includes their childhood and family history, and then a separate section for the details of their biography. In effect, you're arguing that because a person has not grown to maturity until their mid-20s, anything that happened in their lives before that should be considered part of their physical characteristics. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts wild garlic ...

wild garlic

Close

Thank you for having improved an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a GA review! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You're more than welcome!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The article Nord 1500 Griffon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord 1500 Griffon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Why the term 'consort' is appropriate? Reply here and don't ping. BlueD954 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it implies equality. Escorts defend their charge and that wasn't Repulse's role in Force Z. The only escorts were a few destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Sturmvogel 66:, i don't know how to Review GA could you help pls or revert it. Thanks--Siirski (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? You accidentally started reviews?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66:, Yes i accidentally started reviews. --Siirski (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll get that fixed for you. I'm not exactly sure what to do, but I know someone who does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Many Thanks. - --Siirski (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember offhand that I've ever asked an individual to consider giving me a review at FAC, GAN or FLC, outside my general messages when doing a review (certainly not for years) ... but this is probably the right time to start, and you're a good person to start with :) Caveat: this is outside your (many) wheelhouses, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1, but very little of what needs doing is botany-related. I'm having a specific, temporary problem: the first few lists that need to be done, before anything else can be done, are longer than what FLC reviewers are used to ... and probably for that reason, I haven't received any reviews on this for 3 weeks, even though I've been doing a lot of reviews. Can you help? (Feel free to mention that this review was solicited). - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I'll try to get to this weekend, but feel free to remind me if I get distracted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I just got the start of a third review on this one, from TRM ... sometimes he supports when he's done (in which case I probably won't need a 4th support), sometimes not. If you'd like to wait and see what he does, that works for me ... or, if you've already put some time into this, feel free to keep going. FWIW, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (K–P)/archive1 also needs a support before I can nominate the Q–Z list. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, hold off. TRM isn't happy, so either I'll have to edit these two substantially, or else they won't need reviewing. If things change, I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was too ... well, too much. Too much going on here, and I'm not coping like I usually do. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I really am sorry, you didn't deserve that. One thing I've learned is that I can't bring my plant lists to review processes, I don't have enough wiggle-room left with them to allow reviewing to work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I was a bit surprised that you withdrew it so quickly, but that was certainly your prerogative. I certainly didn't take offense at any of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear, I'm a bit relieved. I realized that I nominated it more out of a sense of obligation than because I wanted to. Btw, I did come up with some edits today in response to your request for links for the professions ... it occurred to me I could mention the professions (the ones that occur in the table) in the intro and in a note at the top of the table and link them once, so that I wasn't forced to repeat the links over and over. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good. I never thought that you'd need to link every mention because it's not a sortable table, just on the first mention. And only the more obscure professions, which is definitely a judgement call. For me, I'd expect that biologist would be common enough not to require linking, but botanist, mycologist, etc., would need links. But I have a habit of being generous with links and not worrying too much about sea of blue as long as the phrasing reads well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I don't know when, but if I can get a few more successful runs at FLC under my belt, I'll try again with the one we've been discussing ... feel free to watchlist it and weigh in or not, whatever you like. I'll do as much as I can on the points you raised before I re-nom it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well ... after finally giving up and working on my next nom for a few days, some answers that had been eluding me finally came to me. Ain't that always the way. Nomination is now up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Change [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse] and HMS Prince of Wales (53) I'm fed up!

BlueD954 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How nice for you, but no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting how you've stated how an article's heading was too short in a GA nomination review, yet many of your articles you put forth for nomination are complete and total stubs with hardly any information at all and with and with single black and white image. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 71.54.16.170 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to blank the results of your failed GA nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Having finally pinned down which Spanish warship rammed and sunk a British steamship on New Year's day 1874, I've added a history section to the Spanish ironclad Vitoria article, which you created. Are you able to expand it further? Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I should be able to add her construction information, but I'm uncertain about much past that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I've added a bit more info on the ship's activities during the Cantonal rebellion. Greene & Massignani may have further details, but it's no longer viewable in GB and I don't have a copy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've got a copy. Thanks for the pointer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel, I've seen some of your work. In case it is usefull for you, feel free to serve yourself around there. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I might just do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Japanese cruiser Takachiho you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Takachiho for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Arsenal VG 90 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arsenal VG 90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

The discussion here leads me to think you might have access to Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1817-1863? I'm currently expanding an article on a naval officer who served through the middle of the nineteenth century but have access only to the previous two volumes of Winfield, leaving the narrative of service with some rather large holes. Would you be able to provide some details from 1817-1862 for me, or if that's not possible perhaps suggest where I might find alternative answers?

Many thanks,

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I do, who do you need info on?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Anything involving Henry Smith would be great, but I'm particularly struggling with his commands of HMS Ganges (1821) and HMS Prince Regent (1823). Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The book lacks an index for people, but for Ganges it says she was recommissioned on 1 March 1848 for the Mediterranean and for Prince Regent that Smith assumed command on 7 July 1854 and went to the Baltic in early 1855 (probably a typo for 1854) as she was paid off 16 December 1854 at Portsmouth and remained in Ordinary 1855–1860.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really useful stuff. Could you provide the page numbers for Ganges and Prince Regent for future reference? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't thinking. Page 13 for Royal George and 28 for Ganges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Volume VI of Clowes appears to also have something on Henry Smith - pages 251, 277–279, 281, 284, 288, 296, 549. That might give you something you havn't for yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've used that volume already but thank you for bringing p. 251 to my attention. For whatever reason I ignored it the first time around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Lion-class battlecruiser article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 6, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

Thank you today for the article, about "two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Sturm, I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, but as far as I can tell you haven't promoted or demoted a topic at WP:FGTC since December. Since then I've promoted at least 14 topics and its getting a bit much. I mean this sincerely, if the project doesn't interest you, please let Gamer and I know and I'd be happy—I'm sure Gamer would as well—to find a new delegate if need be. There's a lot of director/delegate attention needed for some of these time consuming promotions, and while there is a bot being worked on it may not be ready for some time. Pinging Gamer @GamerPro64:. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I've been meaning to bring this up. I wanted more delegates for a reason and I want to make sure about your availability to close nominations. GamerPro64 02:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been procrastinating about a lot of Wiki stuff lately. Lemme see what I can do today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Demoted the Jupiter topic although I think that I forgot to add the oldid to the action. I'll take care of that when I get back from class tomorrow night. I followed User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions, although I'm a bit confused by what he meant by step 7 as I thought that I'd done that as part of step 5 or 6. At any rate, check my work and let me know if I missed anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

From memory when I wrote that step 7 was update the main topic box itself. So if a new article was deemed a part of the topic's scope and the topic is demoted it should be added to main topic box itself usually with the or icon (and the count) or in the case of Jupiter there were not new articles in the scope but the icon for Jupiter was already updated by another editor . Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The article Arsenal VG 70 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arsenal VG 70 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I noticed you're part of WP:Aviation and like military topics. I'm currently working on the General Dynamics Wikipedia article, there is room for improvement on a few sections. I have a COI with General Dynamics, so I will not edit the article myself but will present conceptual improvements on the talk page. To start, I rewrote the lead paragraph to clarify what the company does. Here is my proposed version. Any thoughts on this? --Chefmikesf (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You repeated the location of the company's HQ, but it looks fine other than that. I'm not very familiar with what's covered in the articles on defense companies, so I really can't tell what ought to be there that's missing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, Thanks for the feedback. I removed the second location and made some updates. The code was different from the post for some reason. My intention for the edits is to simplify the lead in case others wanted to add to it. Would you be open to making the update?--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd like to check out the articles on a couple of the other major US defense companies. What you have so far is the bare bones of the lede, but I don't know what else should be there. I find ledes the hardest part of an article to write as it's hard to strike a balance between summarizing things and providing too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. As I said, I'm open to additions to the Lead, the intention of this version is to clean it up, remove unnecessary content, and bring attention to this article that needs improvement. Best, Chefmikesf (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I've copied your lede over and cut the county from the location. I'd suggest reinstating the bit about the sale of the Fort Worth Division and would also suggest that you rework the bit about the ten companies to cover instead the four main business groups like shipbuilding, aerospace, etc. Go ahead and make those changes and I'll put the article on my watchlist to provide some oversight. Cite #3 needs to be wikified, by which I mean that it needs to be put into one of the various cite formats like cite news, cite web, etc. If you're not familiar with them let me know and I can give you some pointers. Once you're comfortable with doing that you can go ahead and do the same with any other cites that need to be properly formatted. Another thing you could do would be to provide a citation wherever a citation needed tag is located.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, Your suggestions make sense. I'll move this conversation to the General Dynamics talk page, then I'll ping you again once I have these updates drafted. Best --Chefmikesf (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The article Japanese cruiser Naniwa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Naniwa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this GA review on May 16, and haven't returned to it since. I thought you might have forgotten about it. If you don't think you'll be able to do the review, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The same is true with Talk:Soviet frigate Svirepyy/GA1, which you opened two days earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 - Thank you for reviewing Third Battle of Winchester. The battle was complicated and the article is long, so I appreciate you making the effort and I glad it is someone with your background. TwoScars (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw some historical signs for some of the battles in Winchester, so I figure this will give me a good excuse to learn about at least one of the battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Glad I learned to use "upright=" instead of "px". TwoScars (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I see you are now changing the editors of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships to match your personal preference. Where is the consensus for this change? Or don't you need consensus?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Look more closely. I'm changing the cites to refer to the individual chapters and their authors as we should have been doing from the beginning. I'm using the info as given in the books for the editors. The real uncertainty is how to refer to Gardiner who is named as the editorial director over the individual editors. Since he's not listed as an editor per se, I'm chosing to ignore him in the cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As you are WP:OWNING these articles, there is little point in arguing with you. As my presence on these articles is not wanted I will not waste any effort on improving them.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, Nigel - it's pretty standard to cite the chapter authors of edited volumes, not just the editors. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

And I see you are also forcing use of the US edition of Conway's as well, thus prohibiting anyone who only has the UK edition from editing. Congratulations to you both on your efforts to drive me away.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to take a breath, no one is trying to drive anyone away. One has to pick an edition, and wouldn't you likewise be forcing me to use the UK edition if that's what you cite? It's no different from using a specific new or old edition (Burt's series on British battleships come to mind, as they have markedly different pagination between editions). Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I value your contributions, Nigel and don't understand why you're upset. My personal copies of Whitley's books are from the Naval Institute Press, but I'm perfectly content to use the UK edition since the pagination is identical. Feel free to change editions for any of the Conway's volumes, but be sure to change the ISBN as I've mixed up which edition uses which ISBN before with Conway's. And you can always update the existing UK edition citations with the new info on chapter name, author and page range yourself. There are still lots of British ships that I haven't updated yet and having somebody else help out would be very useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If the editions are different then by changing the edition you are also invalidating all edits using the old edition. I trust that you will remove all edits made by these now forbidden editions.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, paginations for the US and UK editions of Conway's are identical, AFAIK. I was specifically referring to the ISBNs which Parsec and I had screwed up earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You will be pleased to know that I have taken all Royal Navy ships off my watchlist as you have effectively barred me from editing them - this will allow you to force references to your own personal preference and delete everyone else's contributions without disruption. Congratulations - I hope the pair of you are proud of yourselves.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? No one has barred you from anything, and this is not "personal preference", it's standard for both main citation style guides used for historical topics (as I have pointed out on my talk page). If anything, the idea that we don't need to cite chapter authors is your personal preference. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I dunno why you're reacting in such a way to a minor change in referencing, but so be it. Hope to see you reconsider at some soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox on the header section of the article Curtiss P-1 Hawk does not have a picture, but the sections have pictures of the aircraft and its variants.

How about putting a picture on the infobox? (might not presumably due to MoS)...

Thanks. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the June 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest, with three articles achieving 30 points. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not too many articles submitted if my three won!

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 17 reviews between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865 by James McPherson and Blue & Gray Navies: The Civil War Afloat by Spencer Tucker - are you familiar with either of these? Considering getting an ACW naval warfare book to read over the summer and wondering if either of these are worthwhile. Hog Farm _Talk 05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have the former, but haven't read it yet. It's gotten great reviews though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to say no, I know you've got a lot on your plate, but I thought you might want to know that these lists are about to get much shorter and easier to review ... I'll be nomming List of plant family names with etymologies as soon as I get one more support in the current FLC nom. And on top of that, 3/4 of the rows with namesakes have already been reviewed in other FLCs, which might make it easier. I've been reviewing Milhist noms at FLC for a while now ... let me know if you've got any feedback on how I'm doing with those. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. This new list still has the feature that some rows with namesakes have a lot of information and some have very little ... there are ways around that now (such as dropping the extra information and linking to other lists that have that extra information), if this is something you still want to talk about. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

New problem ... List of plant genera named for people (K–P) is one of the "older nominations" now, without a second support. That hasn't happened before, for my noms. FLC is running a little slower (I'll assume that's just a summertime thing, unless it continues in the fall) ... but there may also be an etiquette problem here, that is, the usual reviewers might be waiting for you to at least say that you have no objections on the points you raised the last time around, before they take a look. I'm not sure if that's the case, and I'm not in a hurry, but it would be appreciated if you could stop in and say, at a minimum, "grumble grumble, not exactly what I was looking for but at least some effort has been made so I'm not going to oppose". (Or you could be more positive than that. And if you want to do a review, that would be great.) If you have time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. Tim Riley just supported. If you still want to review, that's great, I look forward to it, but if you decide at some point that you're probably done, then please say that in the review ... I probably won't get any other reviewers stopping by if it looks like I've got 2 supports with another one likely. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can make some time later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts Nine years! ...

Precious

Nine years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for HMS Hood (51), introduced: "HMS Hood symbolized the British Empire before World War II and her sinking by the German battleship Bismarck in 1941 was a huge shock."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I live to serve!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts frozen ...

February songs

frozen

Close

my turn today: my joy (perhaps you remember that you once did a GA review for it) - more on my talk - best wishes for 2022 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see that it made the front page. How could I forget that GAN? Probably the most contentious and frustrating one that I've ever done due to your involuntary collaborator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pity that I don't have anyone special to share them with, but thanks for your kind thoughts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Now St. Patrick's Day: thank you for HMS Erin, introduced (in 2018): "HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922."! - Perhaps you can add your expertise to a ship article I reviewed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Sturmvogel. I just wanted to make a quick note about your comment on the StuG III article, where you said Tank Encyclopedia isn't really a reliable source.

Being in contact with the website's authors, I can tell you that's definitely not the case. Many are (former) tankers, historians, in contact with historians, authors of books (such as Craig Moore – his books can be found online), or generally well informed people when it comes to the subject. Articles published by the website are always based on books and archive documents, which are quoted on the articles' bottoms, like on Wikipedia. At least on the website's newer articles. The quality of their articles has improved very much over time.

There are some outdated articles that have warning signs about this at their beginning – some of them, which are especially outdated, have even been archived and cannot be found on the site's article list anymore. This shows they are very careful with their stuff and don't want to misinform anyone.

Overall, at the moment, TE is a much better source than WP when it comes to tank-related material. It is definitely not a fan-forum or anything like that.

Best regards, Lupishor (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll look at it more closely, but I'm concerned that it may not meet our standards for WP:RS. They may well be experts and very knowledgeable, but if they haven't been professionally published then that may not matter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Aight, thank you. Please ping me upon any further replies. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The book of Moore's I found was published by The History Press, which, while not a vanity press, isn't exactly on the same tier as an academic press. I wasn't able to find any reviews of the book, and add to that Moore is described as a retired cop, not a historian, and it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

As for the site, I can't find an "about" page that lists the contributors (Moore or anyone else), just a vague description of a team of 60+ individuals. We need to know who exactly is writing the material and what their credentials are to evaluate the site as a source.

From what I'm seeing, it looks like a hobbyist site. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be cited in our articles. And if articles at Tank Encyclopedia cite sources, we should be using those sources (that doesn't ring any Navweaps bells, does it, Sturm?) Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

At the bottom there's a gallery of clickable images that includes The Team. I scrolled through about half of the lengthy list and found one guy who's self-published multiple books, but most all of the other ones had no relevant professional publishing credentials. The individual articles seem to vary widely in quality, but to the site's credit most of the worst are labelled as needing further work. Some articles did have a list of sources, but not all.

I still need to replace the Navweaps refs with ones from Friedman in a lot of my articles, but only tend to do it for existing FAs and articles up for promotion. One of these days, they'll all be gone!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, how exactly should I interpret the reply? Would you say that their high-quality articles can count as reliable sources, but the worse ones (including those that cite no sources) cannot?

About the varying quality of articles - as I said in my initial comment, low quality ones are mostly older ones. Quality has improved over time, with the site getting more and more professional. As you said yourself, low quality (mostly older) articles are labeled as needing a rework - others have been archived entirely. Lupishor (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I don't think that the vast bulk of the contributors meet the criteria to be considered reliable sources, which means that the whole site cannot be used as a source. Your best bet is to use the sources mentioned and read them for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The age of naval ships is of interest to many of our Wikipedia users, especially those interested in history; it puts a ship into a historical context. Your recent reverts of USS Hornet (CV-12) and J-, K- and N-class destroyer with the simple comment "Age unimportant" and "Nobody cares how long ago that was" may not be in the spirit of the Wikipedia community. Truthanado (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that many of our readers want to know the how long it's been since the ship was built, etc. If they were, I'd expect either requests for that info on talk pages or they'd be making the appropriate changes themselves. You are the only person that I've ever seen make those changes and I've never had a reader request a ship's age in over a decade of editing here and a very extensive watchlist of ship articles. I would suggest that you open a discussion over at WT:SHIPS to get a sense of how other editors feel about your proposed changes. Until then I suggest you stop making them and self-revert those that you might have made on articles which I don't watch until a consensus emerges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no reason to do it. Ships aren't people, and they don't age in the same way. And even if someone wanted to know how old a given ship is, it's fairly basic arithmetic. We don't need to add yet more clutter to infoboxes, when they're typically already bloated with extraneous details. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this review back on June 27 and haven't yet returned to conduct the review. Please stop by as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The same is true of Talk:Battle of Hancock/GA1. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

G'day Sturm, I see you've added English to the sources, presumably to add detail about the destroyers sunk in the Dodecanese minefield? I was thinking she was ready for a possible co-nom for FAC? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, even though I'm a bit puzzled how Freivogel consistently mis-dated the incidents. I think it's pretty well ready for FAC as well, so go ahead and nominate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

My first attempt at creating a ship article from a redlink. (A USA revenue cutter taken into Confederate service that later saw minimal military action). Infobox likely needs work, but beyond that, do you think it's close to GAN-able? I've only done one ship GA (USS Indianola), so I'm not super used to judging these article quite yet. There's not much detail available it seems about this one's service. Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I see you reverted my edit to C and D-class destroyer. On the points you made in the edit comment:

• No abbreviated months: short months make sense in space-restricted areas, such as multiple columns with dates in them. It's an obvious way to help keep the columns from getting unnecessarily wide just to print "September". It also tends to make the columns less visibly variable based on the variegations of the data within them.
• don't see a need for a separate column for refs: Many tables don't need a separate column for refs, but this one is absolutely a case where a Refs column makes sense, on several points:
  1. If you look at the reflist at the bottom after your edit or before I edited, reference number 18 (English p.51) has 33 instances of being referenced. It's a ridiculously long refcount for a single reference in an article like this. In my version, 10.
  2. You can think of a data table as just a collection of similarly-worded sentences, but without all the extra conjunctions, repeated verbs, etc. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't allow a sentence to stand like this in any article text:

     HMS Duncan was laid down on 25 September 1931^[1] in HM Dockyards in Portsmouth^[1], launched on 7 July 1932^[1], completed being built on 31 March 1933^[1], and was scrapped between 1945 and 1949.^[2]

     Yes, I know it's a bit of a clunky sentence, but the point is that it is clearly citation overkill. If would be much better written as such:

     HMS Duncan was laid down on 25 September 1931 in HM Dockyards in Portsmouth, launched on 7 July 1932, completed being built on 31 March 1933, and was scrapped between 1945 and 1949.^[1][3]

     And that is all that moving the refs to their own Refs column is doing. Especially when you consider that, without exception, every builder and date in the date columns for C-class ships came from English p. 45, and all the builders and dates in the D-class ships came from English p. 51. There is no need to repeat Eng-p45 or Eng-p51 for every builder and date cell in the table.
• truly dislike the column for class: Unfortunately, the pseudo-header row subheaders for C- and D-class have to go. This is an accessibility thing. At MOS:COLHEAD, they show two examples to resolve the problem: either a separate column for the two different groups (as I edited the table); or two separate tables, one for C-class, one for D-class. I'm okay with either, so you can choose. I'll go either way, but the pre-existing method can't stay.  — sbb (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Late thought: Because the builder & date columns all have the same reference (for each class), a table note, footnote, reference attached to the caption (if the tables are split between C & D), or some other deduplication method, would make more sense than putting the same ref in a ref column, even more so than my edit. The unique refs per Fate field would then stay put, and then absolutely no need for a ref column.  — sbb (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think splitting the table into one for each class is the best solution, with the appropriate refs in the column headers. What's up with your change to exclamation points to lead off each row? Doesn't seem to have done anything visible, although I'd have thought it would bold the entries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's subtle. From a strict accessibility viewpoint, the scope="row" is ignored if the cell isn't a table header cell (HTML <th>, designated by wikitext !, not |). The visible difference is always a slightly darker background. If the table has {{{1}}}, then row headers (specified by !scope="row"|) aren't bold and the cell is left-justified. If "plainrowheaders" is given for the table, then row headers are bold and centered, just like column headers.  — sbb (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I had no idea, but my command of table syntax is somewhat rudimentary. Now if I can just remember all this new code!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd take this opportunity to firstly thank you again for taking up the first three GAs I put up for review. Your comments on all of them were very helpful and I've attempted to implement your suggestions in my more recent edits as well. I don't have as much time to write up somewhat large articles right now and thought instead that I might attempt an A-class review for one of my existing GAs, perhaps HMS Caroline (1795). I was wondering if you might have any suggestions on how I might push to improve the article? Either way, thanks again for the assistance you've provided as I've slowly learned how to edit. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just a friendly ping for the review I've left at Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)/GA1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ship+Photo+ZMAJ.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll look it over later this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Vikhr.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Shtorm(ship).jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I left a message for you at my talk page. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Tupolev Tu-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Hood&oldid=1055728727 Hi, last night I spent some time amending HMS Hood references to further expand on the coding as an improvement... However you seem to have spent some time undoing the work to revert it to an old way; I have no quarrel, I am relatively new to coding on wikipedia; but I am pondering why you decided to do that, please and thanks...(User talk:Cltjames)

Suffice it to say that I dislike sfn format. People tend to be very particular about which citation format they prefer and you should not change it without getting a consensus unless the article meets the criteria in WP:CITEVAR for unilateral changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I noticed that you marked HMS Hood and USS Lexington (CV-2) as "Updated" at WP:URFA/2020B. Does this mean that the articles meet the FA criteria? If so, can you change "Updated" to "Satisfactory"? If not, can you leave some notes on the article's talk page on how the article can meet improved and link those notes in URFA/2020? If you have any questions, please ping me and I will be happy to help. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Sturmvogel 66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

More information Volume I — Issue 1, Aviation pages by quality ...

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 249,511 Ω = 4.86
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between October and December 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PetlyakovPe-8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 March 2022. 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/March 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Does either Canney or Silverstone's newer work have anything of interest to say about this vessel? I've given it an expansion/GAN based on the sources I have available to me. Hog Farm _Talk 06:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably, but let me see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel, an article at WP:URFA/2020 that you originally nominated for FA status, Russian battleship Potemkin, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Looks like the bot awarded me 15 bonus points for my DYK of The West Wing's The Long Goodbye (see my submissions page)—I'm assuming that's because of the article's longevity (created in '06), but it was a redirect from 2013—2022. Does that still count? Thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

So I've noticed you haven't closed any topic nominations in months. I was wondering if you still want to be a delegate for Featured Topics? GamerPro64 21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I decided to take you off the delegation list. If you do want to help out let me know. GamerPro64 03:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

In HMS Nottingham (1913), you reverted my change of "Home and Grand Fleets" to "Home and Grand fleets" saying "still proper nouns". This is not a big thing, but it goes against most style manuals that I know. In our own, MOS:POLITICALUNITS gives the example:

Incorrect (generic plural): The Cities of Calgary and Edmonton are in Alberta.

Correct (generic plural): The cities of Calgary and Edmonton are in Alberta.

Correct (plural legal entities): The City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton have dissimilar rent-control ordinances.

I leave it up to you whether to undo the revert. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Was poking around and noticed Gallica has some way better images than we have. If you wanted to choose one of these? https://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&version=1.2&startRecord=0&maximumRecords=15&page=1&query=%28gallica%20all%20%22Jean%20bart%22%29&filter=dc.type%20all%20%22image%22

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry for bothering you but will you continue the review of the Romanian Air Corps article? Was wondering since the last time we worked on it was last month and you did say that it should be nearly done. Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your e-mails gratefully received. I'm only de-½, so am heavily reliant on Google Translate. Will see what I can add from those sources. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm about the same. The annoying thing about Gröner is having to translate the headings on the table to confirm what you think you're reading and then all the abbreviations in the brief ship's history. I'd suggest replacing both of your borderline online sources with those two as much as you can. Lemme know if you need more scans of either source for other articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What page of Dalzel-Job does the info you added come from? The {{sfn}} template needs correctly formatting to clear the error category Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Use {{sfn|Dalzel-Job|1993|page=}} with the page number filled in and it'll go. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's somewhere in chapter 11, but my copy is a .epub with unreliable pagination. One reason why I dislike sfn and similar cite formats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've begun to try to flesh this one out a bit using Chatelain's Defending the Arteries of Rebellion, Bisbee's Engines of Rebellion, and Luraghi's A History of the Confederate Navy. I've also got Still's Iron Afloat, but I'm assuming it's been pretty well gleaned. I'm starting with Chatelain, and noticing that he gives differing details in a few spots - Chatelain p. 262 says that the vessel was formally commissioned on September 19, but the article cites Koehler and Stehman as it being commissioned on September 12. Chatelain gives Fauntleroy's rank as a 1st Lt., but Still calls him a Lieutenant Commander. Any thoughts on how you want to handle the differences between sources? Fauntleroy's rank probably isn't all that significant, but the date of commission is. (P.S. - I've only skimmed Bisbee, but he suggests that there is some uncertainty if the machinery came from Grand Era or T. W. Roberts; Chatelain also suggests Paul Jones as a source of some machinery). Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Canney says that she "was turned over to Confederate authorities on 12 September", although she was still unarmed at that time. The easiest thing to do is to use that phrasing for 12 Sept. and commissioning on 19 Sep., IMO.

I've done a closer read of Bisbee and Canney and there are some worthwhile details that I'll add. I'd like to delete your addition of "Because no rolling mill was available, the rails were attached directly." as that seems redundant to the earlier statement about being spiked to the backing, although I'm not sure what exactly you meant by "attached directly".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"attached directly" is the wording from Chatelain; I'm not entirely sure what it's meant to signify either and am perfectly fine with removal. If you've got better access to Bisbee that would be great; I only have scans from a library e-book that are of probably dubious ethicality (which I justified by telling myself the publisher shouldn't have made the work so hard to get ahold of). Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As for Fauntleroy's rank, he could have been promoted while in command, although his rank could be verified through the Official Records or if there's a biographical dictionary of Confederate naval officers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Register of Officers of the Confederate States Navy has him as a 1st Lieutenant. Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Good enough for me! I snagged my copy of Bisbee as soon as it was published as engine details of the ironclads have long been an impenetrable mystery. It's been surprisingly even more useful than I expected. Can you ILL a copy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll give ILL a check - between my wife and I we have access to two university libraries and three county libraries, so it's a possibility. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty well done with it; see what you think. Do you want to put it up for ACR?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd be open to an ACR co-nom if you think it's in good shape - Luraghi contains nothing useful and neither do the handful of other naval sources I have around in print. I'm hoping to get Baltic to FAC eventually once I can get Kablammo's concern about what measurement to use for the displacement/tonnage figure to use figured out. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait a day or two then read through it critically and see what you think. I think that I've linked everything that should be linked and that the text flows pretty well. But I'm never a good editor of my own stuff. Tweak it as necessary and then nom it.

I never did fill out the details for Baltic and Fredericksburg like I promised. I'll try to get to them once I've reviewed all the GANs that I claimed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made a couple edits and plan to make a few minor cite cleanups (bundling the duplicate cites and getting Olmstead spelled right), but I do have a citation question - The third gun was a smoothbore 9-inch (229 mm) Dahlgren pivot gun that could fire out of either of the two aft broadside gun ports. and An old 32-pounder (14.5 kg) siege gun was in the equivalent position on the port side of the ship. both wind up cited to Olmstead et al - while I don't have a copy of the Olmstead source my understanding of this source is that it's a detailing of gun characteristics that probably doesn't speak specifically on the armament of Missouri. It looks like I can get Bisbee for two weeks at a time from a local library, so I can check there and if necessary in the ORNs to find a ref for gun placement if Olmstead doesn't cover it directly. Hog Farm _Talk 03:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Cited the position of the 32-pdr to Canney and cleaned up some typos. Should be ready to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The article Joffre-class aircraft carrier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joffre-class aircraft carrier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started an article on V 213 Zieten, but need a check done before I release into mainspace. I'm not sure I've got the French Navy stuff correct, so would you please check Roche and make any necessary amendments? Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your email raises a few issues. According to Kbismark, UJ 1401 was formerly Friedrich Busse, but Gröner p.172 disagrees. Kbismark has no UJs scuttled at Nantes. Groner has no UJs built by Bremer Vulkan.

I think Roche has the former identity of Astrolabe incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You may well be correct, but there are lots of discrepancies that I cannot resolve such as Gröner not showing Busse renamed as FJ 1401. And Rohwer shows V213 escaping to Jersey on 26/27 June after engaging two Allied destroyers, but V204 isn't mentioned at all. So perhaps the question should be which ship was renamed V213 after Zieten became V204.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you intend to add more, or would this one be in good enough shape to consider an ACR? I'm hoping to work some of the ironclad articles this summer - I just picked up a copy of Smith's book about Carondelet and Robert's Civil War Ironclads for under $10 each, and can get Smith's work on tinclads from the library and ILL his work on timberclads, so I might even be able to take on some of the Union ones, at least to B-Class. It looks like Roberts has some information on the construction of the Passaic-class, which isn't as well covered on Wikipedia as most of the other monitors. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the stuff about her operational history, but I think that the technical side and construction stuff is pretty solid. I'd be happy to take it to ACR with you once I've had a chance to do that. I'm not offhand familiar with Robert's book, but Canney's books on the USN and CSN are pretty much the gold standard for the technical and construction side of things, which makes me wonder why Bisbee didn't reference his CSN book that was already published when Bisbee wrote his.

I've got most of the books on the Union ships that you've mentioned above and would be happy to help out if you'd like, but I think that these last couple of articles should provide a model for you on the level of technical detail and organization that I think is appropriate for an A-class article. If you'd prefer to take them to B-class or GAN yourself and then have me add details from Canney, etc. for a joint GAN or ACR, that would be fine. Or not, whatever you'd like. One warning though is that we've been working on singleton ships where a lot of detail is appropriate; for ships in a class, some of that detail gets transferred to the class article if it's not particular to that individual ship. Forex, I'd put all the stuff about engine bore & stroke, propeller diameter and gun details into the class article while just leaving the engine type and gun model in the ship article with links.

Why does the DANFS cite need that annoying ref=none field? Is it because it's a cite web rather then cite book?

When you get a chance, take a look at the CSS Arkansas article; I put a bunch of work into it earlier, but am thinking that I need to split out the details on the combat into a separate article on the battle while summarizing those details for the ship's article. Lemme know what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The local library doesn't have either of Canney's works, so I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to go through some of them when you have time and a joint ACR would probably be best at least for awhile. I haven't had a chance to read through Roberts much yet, but his work appears to hit the construction fairly hard but is lighter on the service history, which is probably easier to find sourcing for. I'm still learning the ropes a bit on the naval articles, so hopefully they aren't too messy to clean up.

Without any sense of false modesty, I think that the format that Parsec and I have developed over the years is pretty good for uninitiated readers with a plethora of links and a logical narrative that flows well. I almost completely overhauled Fredericksburg's description section and it might be worthwhile to study what I did there. I always split out construction stuff from the description as it can otherwise be confusing if you're throwing dates around. The way you had it was perfectly fine for a GA-level article, but I'm not sure that it would have sufficed at FAC.

I'm a bit confused by Bisbee's sourcing choices at times too. For instance, with Baltic, pretty much every source other than him says that the vessel was built in PA. He doesn't make any reference to this in the text or footnotes that I've seen, and his sourcing for his claim of New Albany, IN is to some pre-war newspaper articles. How he tied those articles to the Confederate ship I'm not sure, but it seemed odd to me to go that much against the grain without at least an explanation in a footnote.

I'll see if I can at least clarify some of these issues in the Baltic article for you from Canney, even if only to copy over the statement from Fredericksburg that the exact type of tonnage is unknown, so you can send it up to FAC.

The ref=none is because in that case, the DANFS cite is set up as a <ref></ref> citation, while the long citation uses the citation template, and the two types of citations don't mesh well. It generally only flags a minor error, but I have a user script installed that shows some reference formatting errors in colored warning fonts, so I did that to remove it. The ref=none is something that could probably be removed (although the "error" would probably be questioned if an FAC was ever made), although those "errors" sometimes attract CitationBot, who often does referencing changes I don't appreciate. Another solution would be to hardkey the DANFS citation directly without using the template.

So unrelated to the error that causes @Parsecboy: to add |ref={{sfnRef|X}} while using the sfn format so he gets the actual link to the source in the Bibliography. I've never been able to figure out why that happens (no link to the source), because it's not consistent as far as I can tell. I've done a couple of articles with Peacemaker using sfn format, which I'm not fond of, BTW, and never had that problem despite using identical code to my eyes. WTF?

I've always used the sfn format, but mainly because that's what I've first used (and I had a good experience with it at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Blenheim/archive1), although I'm reasonably comfortable with the other format and am willing to switch to it for the ironclad articles. (I find the sfns help me avoid spelling/date errors in the ref names, although paying more attention would solve that also). Hog Farm _Talk 06:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree re Arkansas with splitting out the battle material and then doing a tighter summary in the main article. I just am not sure what the split-out article would be titled (Action of 15 July 1862?). I've got several works on Vicksburg that could be used to flesh out the battle article more if desired. Hog Farm _Talk 15:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

CSS Arkansas vs. the entire Mississippi Squadron has a certain ring to it, doncha think? The Action of X is kinda the Wiki go to, but is very bland and uninformative. This battle is kind of famous among people who like the Western Theater of the Civil War and I'd like to keep the ship's name in the title, so people know that it involves Arkansas rather than some piddly little engagement between tinclads or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll give my Vicksburg books a perusal over the weekend to see if there's something they consistently refer to the action by (I see NHHC has a category for "CSS Arkansas vs. Union Fleet", which is another decent descriptor). Hog Farm _Talk 06:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind CSS Arkansas vs. the Union Fleet either. Appreciate you checking for a common name we can use for a title. BTW, those recent edits regarding CSN ship namesakes has prompted my memory. Somehow I'd completely forgotten that I have a book on hand that actually covers namesakes that I've used a million times for my ship articles. Somehow I had it in my head that it didn't cover Confederate warships and didn't think to double-check that. At any rate I'll be adding them to the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Ballard's Vicksburg: The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi uses "Arkansas's battle with the Union fleet", Chatelain's Arteries of Rebellion understates it as "Run to Vicksburg", the majority of sources I have don't give it an explicit name. Would it step on your toes any if I made any updated to User:Sturmvogel 66/Ironclads? I stumbled across it using "what links here" once - I updated for Indianola when I found it and just did so for Fredericksburg. (I also stayed up late last night and did some work on USS Squando). Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think that there'd be a consistent name for that battle. Feel free to update as needed. I've mostly been forgetting to do that as you can tell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added the note about the unknown type of tonnage to the Baltic article. Was there anything else that needed to be done for that article before a FAC?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless Canney or somebody had extra information, I don't think so. If you wanted to do a co-nom, it could be put up right now, or I could wait until the FAC for Battle of Van Buren closes and then bring it myself. Either way is fine by me if you're comfortable with the article content. Hog Farm _Talk 22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Canney doesn't have much, but he does say that the ship had two Dahlgrens (of unspecified size) and three 32-pounders, but does note one source that says it was one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders. Worth a note, or better incorporated directly into the text? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Silverstone 1989 gives the 2 Dahlgren, 2 32lb-er, and 2 misc. figure as well (probably pulling from DANFS, which I've found that Silverstone 1989 follows too heavily at times). I skimmed the scans of Bisbee I had and didn't see anything about armament. Might be better to footnote then. Hog Farm _Talk 23:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Finished with Baltic; I removed the inflation calculation as capital costs increase far more rapidly than CPI-style inflators can recognize. AFAIC (concerned), ready to nom whenever you're comfortable with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've got no further concerns; if you're okay with a co-nom for FAC I can set one up after I get off work. Hog Farm _Talk 15:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

<horrified face>But we'll lose a couple of hours! Who knows who's inclined to review now, but won't be later?</horrified face>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The article ARA Catamarca (1912) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:ARA Catamarca (1912) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, Sturm. Could I beg some eyes on my FAC for USS Johnston (DD-557)? I'm totally willing to pay you in kind later if it's not too much trouble for you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I did a source review, but had to oppose and I have to agree with Gog as a lot of your language is unprofessional (pummel?). I'd suggest fixing things as per his comments and then withdrawing it. If you're willing, I'd be happy to help you rework the article and then we could co-nominate it, much as I've done for HogFarm with his CSS Baltic article.

Obviously I have no idea if you want to continue working on US ships, or even ships in general, but if you do I'd suggest starting to build a library covering the ships that interest you, by either purchase or copying them once you've gotten them through Inter-library Loan. I have some of the books that we'd need to revise the article if you don't have access to them.

While I haven't written much on US ships, I do have a couple of FAs that you might find profitable to read, if for no other reason, to learn a style that does pass FAC pretty easily. Notably Arizona, Lexington and Saratoga. I can't remember if I've kept them fully up to date with the changing standards at FA, but you might be able to point out a few things that I need to update.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I shall do as you say.

I've always had a passing interest in World War II, but especially the Pacific War. You might remember that my first real contribution to MILHIST was a clumsy attempt to get List of sunken battleships to FL. I'm but an entry-level amateur, and thought I'd spied an area of the Encyclopedia that could be relatively quickly and easily completed, based on cursory glances at other USN articles. I'm dismayed to see that my work wasn't up to par, but better to know that and be able to improve than publish a bunch of baloney and hurt our credibility. I'd love to get this and the other Fletchers to FA, if you think you're up to... 177 or so FACs - or Johnston at the very least.

I was aware of a newer version of Friedman, but I was unable to find a copy. Generally what I use in an article is decided as you might imagine by if I can access it; that has not been the case for a few books I (and then Hog Farm, who reviewed DD-557 at GAN) looked into. If we collaborate, you may find that I'm more dead weight than worthwhile collaborator. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps so, at least initially, but my intention is more to mentor you in identifying what works at FAC and then let you go to work mostly on your own, with me offering advice and corrections as needed. One of the first things that I like to do is build the description section with an introductory sentence or two that can be used as boilerplate across all of the individual ship articles, coupled with a paragraph on the ship's construction and possibly its initial assignment, depending on how much info I have available. See my recent articles on Argentinian DDs, Catamarca and Jujuy for examples. They're written to FAC standard, as are all of my articles that I intend to at least send to GAN, but I'll probably never take them to ACR as there's a dearth of sources for them and I have little interest in hunting down references to them in Spanish-language sources.

Similarly, I build a standard bibliography in a consistent format for use across all the articles and add or subtract titles as necessary. I'll show you what I mean when I fix the errors I identified in my source review and add some of the titles that I mentioned. I totally agree with you about letting the available sources guide which articles to work on and would advise that you initially limit yourself to those ships that were lost during the war to keep things as easy as possible at the beginning of your project. Sourcing for ships that weren't transferred to foreign navies after the war are pretty easy given DANFS, but those ships that were transferred can be problematic as I've discovered with some of the British DDs. Just something to keep in mind.

I have the 2005 revised edition of Friedman, but I've just ordered the newer one as it has more pages. I'll have to do a comparison between the two editions to see what's different. Hopefully, Friedman's done more with the new one than add illustrations ;-) For the nonce, don't worry about the sources as I can pretty much get anything that we might need or already have it on hand.

Lemme know whenever you've fixed the issues that Gog identified and have withdrawn the nom and I'll fix up the bibliography. I'll have to wait for Friedman to be delivered, plus I need to order a history of the whole class to see if there's anything useful that Friedman doesn't cover in it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I shall continue to work on the US Navy to the best of my abilities, and with growing confidence. At the moment, I am gnawing on Simón Bolívar and Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Song for Simeon/archive1, and I expect to soon be rewriting another ColonelHenry FA, but I'll commit within this month or the next to working on Johnston and the Fletchers.

Does that history of the class happen to be Fletcher Class Destroyers by Alan Raven? Hog Farm looked it up to see if it had any details on the Johnston's radar array - all sources but Hornfischer have thus far frustrated me on this, and even Hornfischer names radar units only in passing, rather than something like a stat sheet - and we were disappointed.

Speaking of frustration, a very short look at one of the USN articles you linked above, and a query by Gog about Johnston's hull number, led me to discovering that the DANFS as it exists now does not discuss hull numbers or their significance. So it would seem that the DANFS you used to write Arizona, Saratoga, and Lexington is not the DANFS I used to write Johnston. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about, but the entry on Johnston is about the best that I've ever seen in DANFS. But DANFS rarely covers equipment in any detail. In my two carrier articles I just linked to the article on hull number while discussing their conversions. And in Arizona, I didn't even do that much; something that I'll have to address in a similar manner. But Gog wasn't around then to ask about hull numbers. I've received and been disappointed the new edition of Friedman; it's just a straight reprint that I'll be returning to the publisher as the book's listing is very misleading.

For both the RN and the USN figuring out light AA and radar configurations is about the most difficult thing to do as they changed constantly and sources rarely covered all the changes in detail, particularly for members of large classes like the Fletchers. I've got some other resources on hand that might clarify things, but we'll see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately Johnston was one of the later Fletchers and had the standard AA armament and was sunk before the anti-Kamikaze AA refits began in 1945. Her radars are also pretty standard, although I've got nothing to tell me if she received a Mk-12 fire-control radar before her loss. But that picture of her refuelling is pretty suggestive that she didn't as I'm pretty sure that she still had her original Mk-4 radar as of that date. But that's just my conjecture and not an RS. I'll have to settle for saying that it could be one or the other and we cannot determine which bases on available sources. BTW, I've gotten the Raven book and you're right about it not being all that useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Vami IV when I moved last summer I ended up with access to a good university library system and a better county library system than the other areas I'd been in. Not the best collection of naval history per se, but I can attempt to get ahold of something if you can't access it. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind to point out which source you've add in Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiser is? We just only see "Solari" in the text, but don't know which book or what source the "Solari" means. JuneAugust (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd guess he meant Soliani - I've corrected the footnotes to that. And Sturm, this is why I switched to using the {{sfn}} templates, so it'd highlight when I typo refs. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Get off my porch, you whipper-snapper!" Shaking my cane at the suburban 'yutes'.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

the future is now, old man –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hah! I've been living my whole life in the future!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Borodino-class battlecruiser introduced (in 2018): "Construction of the Borodino-class battlecruisers by the Imperial Russian Navy began before World War I, but the war prevented delivery of components ordered from abroad and construction was abandoned. After the Russian Civil War was over in 1922, one ship was considered for conversion into an aircraft carrier, but this was rejected and all four ships were scrapped."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I have added a "Further reading" section, to the article on this battlecruiser. as I'm unsure if the "Bibliography" is allowed to contain works that are not directly referenced. Some editors seem to get up set over it. Please let me know what is the practice for this project. Matthew Wright has produced two books which discuss HMS New Zealand. I have changed the referencing to make it clear which one. Let me know if anything is wrong and I will fix it.

At a later date I hope to add more information on the construction of the ship, it's world cruise in 1913 and Jellicoe's cruise in 1919. John Prattley (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly the purpose of the Further reading section. Be wary of getting too deep into the weeds; Wikipedia is intended to summarize a ship's history, not provide a mass of minor details. You can see the acceptable level of detail by looking at the other ship articles that are WP:Featured Articles and have been peer reviewed as part of that process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The article ARA Jujuy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:ARA Jujuy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've got this up for GAN now, leaning mainly on Bisbee and Still with assists from Silverstone's 1989 work and DANFS. Any thoughts on missing material for GAN purposes? Intended to be an ironclad, but relegated to floating battery status in practice. Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I fixed one typo in a link, but you've covered it pretty well. I'll have to check Canney to see if we can resolve contradicting sources like we had to do for Baltic. I'm not really enjoying House of the Dragon right now so this will provide a nice palate cleanser.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested to see if Canney has anything further to say about the armor - I've read almost all the way through Still's whole book this week, and Still frequently mentions that the Confederates couldn't effectively do anything thicker than 2-inch plate, so I imagine that the armor here is 2 layers of 2-inch plate, but the sources aren't very detailed on the armor. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    • No nothing useful on the armor, only that they were intended to have four inches. He does have a lot more on the ship's trials that I'd expected (I always have low expectations for CSS ships, though) and confirms that they were indeed diamond hull designs, although modified by the builder. How do you want to handle this? I can either review this now and add the extra info before a joint ACR or work on it before it gets a reviewer as a co-nom and then we wait for that to happen. I'm fine either way.
    • A bigger question is how to treat this ship and her sister. Information is so scanty on both that I think the best treatment would be to consolidate them as the Huntsville-class ironclad with redirects from the former individual articles to avoid simply repeating the same info twice over. Without any operational history we have little to differentiate between the two. I tried to do this before, but didn't follow through enough with amending the articles that somebody reverted me. If you agree with me, we should probably bring this up at WT:SHIPS for discussion first. To avoid issues with the article getting reviewed while still under discussion, I'd quick-fail the article first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I've taken the shortest route and simply removed the GAN template from the article talk page. I tend to agree with you that the two are probably best covered under the class article - the only real differences noted in Bisbee and Still are the different machinery sources, some differing timetables for parts of the construction, and the fact that Huntsville shelled Federal forces at Spanish Fort and Fort Blakeley, and Tuscaloosa didn't. Given the two had no real service history to speak of, I can't really think of any particular reason why a separate treatment would be preferable. I've removed the GAN for now, so that nobody picks it up.
      • My only real experience with ship class articles is Squib-class torpedo boat, which is probably a bit of a clunker (FWIW, I treated CSS Wasp and CSS Hornet like what's been proposed for Tuscaloosa - minimal service history, so redirect to the class and have a short description there). Since I lack familiarity with layout/formatting for ship classes, it might be best to treat this one as a co-nom. Hog Farm _Talk 18:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
        • OK, I'll start the discussion at WT:SHIPS shortly. Class articles are generally more difficult than individual ships articles because it's hard to find the right level of detail when trying to summarize each ship's service, IMO. This is much, much easier if there's no real operational history to deal with. I took a quick look at your Squib class article and Squib's individual article. What you did there is fine, but I'd have folded everything into the class article because there's so little there. I do have to confess that I am influenced in my thinking by Wiki gamesmanship as it would be much easier to get the class article to pass GAN than any of the individual ship articles. I do like forming Good and Featured topics, for all that I have done hardly anything towards that in the last few years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
          • For what it's worth, I did a similar thing with Rhein-class monitor for the same reasons. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
            • Wow, that was a quick response! It seems logical to me, but I think things are a little bit different with extant articles. This approach or adding them to missing class articles probably ought to be used for a lot of the other Confederate ironclads for which not a lot of info is available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between April and June 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Borodino-class battlecruiser article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 16, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 16, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim, I'll see what needs doing shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your latest edit to this page is unacceptable and also a direct insult to me; completely removing now nearly a week worth of research and over 12,000 words. Let's take a look at your rude comments shall we:

1. There's no such thing as an Admiralty in Japan

Although the concept of an Admiralty doesn't exist in Japan, it was a historical compromise to use the term itself. An elite group of admirals which lobbied the design department did exist in Japan, however were never formally named or designated an Admiralty. How am I supposed to tell the reader there is an elite group of admirals that is lobbying the design department that is somehow not an admiralty, even though the concept of one was foreign to the Japanese. Therefore the word Admiralty was used to describe a group of elite admirals.

Wiki relies on what the sources tell us, and doesn't make up terms. The Japanese split the duties of the British Admiralty between Naval Ministry and the Naval General Staff, so there's really no case to be made for using that term. In this case you could have called them politically powerful admirals or some such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

2. No Page References

I'm sorry, that is a poor excuse to remove close to 12,000 words of new, referenced detail from the whole page. I referenced the whole chapter pertaining to the Super Yamato or Design A-150 from my book source for this page. I no longer have the book to reference since I returned it to the library, hoping that it was done with. Unfortunately due to molesting my edits and completely gutting the page of useful new info for smelly old info of the previous you've turned it back to the toxic swamp of bad information it was before the changes. So, I propose, if you can get that book, maybe you can provide the actual page references yourself if you are such a cite nazi.

This is a featured article which requires all changes to match existing formats, including page numbers for references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Failure to match cite format

Chicago Manual of Style is the source format, correct? Again, a poor excuse to remove 12,000 words from the article based on cite format and completely reject research because it isn't cited exactly the same as whatever you guys on the wiki use.

Did you not notice that the actual cites were author(s) (date), page? Or that there was no space between the punctuation and the cite?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Poor grammar

Do you know how gravely insulting that is; however, I grant you I was intending to do further edits this morning to correct a few things. Anyway, reverting all 12,000 words over that is a blatant abuse of editorial power and considering you are a cite nazi, you may also be a grammar nazi.

Why the bizarre capitalizations?Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

5.Excessive detail

That is a complete and utter bullshit excuse and you know it. Simplicity is nice for a children's article, but this isn't exactly an article meant for children is it. It is meant for plebs and amateur historians to learn more detail about this class of warship. Simply reverting changes for excessive detail ought to get you removed from Wikipedia. Details are there to give more information. Keeping it simple on these pages with out of date information as opposed to the detail of current information (as I had it) is much like keeping humans in the stone age just because they might revolt if they got iron tools.

Some people might consider you a first class editor, but as far as I'm concerned you are a politically fueled grammar and cite nazi out to completely gut peoples changes out of spite. I demand you revert the changes and if you are going to complain and moan about these above things then you can kiss my butt. 172.8.197.150 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to have a hope of retaining your edits on the Yamato article, you'll need to conform to the pre-existing formats as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

hello, Sturmvogel 66! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.

• the article body states that izmail was scrapped in leningrad, and the table of ship data does not mention the ship having been sold for scrap. if this means that the soviet union had scrapped it themselves, would it be more appropriate to state, in the blurb and article lead, that the ships were all "eventually scrapped or sold for scrap by the Soviet Union" instead of "eventually sold for scrap by the Soviet Union"?

Clarified it.

• the table of ship data gives a launch date for izmail in late june, contrary to the russian description of the photo used in the blurb, and the launch date noted on the ship.bsu.by page included under the external links section. is the launch date currently in the table likely the correct date? the article body mentions western sources being incorrect about a number of things, and i noticed that the table cites a western source for the launch dates. if, instead, the earlier date is correct, then i think the caption in the blurb can be modified to "Izmail being launched at Baltic Works", if you feel that that would be appropriate.

dying (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

McLaughlin uses Russian-language sources so I have confidence in his data.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A military rank or job title is capitalized when followed by a person's name to form a title, but not when modified. MOS:MILTERMS says "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people", and that section says "For fuller details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Titles of people." The example there (in MOS:JOBTITLES) shows that a modified title is not capitalized: "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." Of course, if not modified by the nationality, it would be changed to "Mao met with President Richard Nixon in 1972.", with "President" capitalized. So MOS:JOBTITLES takes precedence over the other two abridged sections of the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 15:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a total of 1,193 points from 231 articles throughout the year. Congratulations and thank you for your efforts! Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Better Late than never! Thankds for digging this up.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Good morning,

You have been cleaning up the Conway's citations in articles and putting in the authors of each country's section. I was wondering where do you find that information in the book? I would like to update my citations to reflect best practices.

Thanks for your time,

Llammakey (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's usually across from the Table of Contents. Just be careful to update any cites in the article and add author links as appropriate. I'll be glad for any help upgrading the citations.

Thanks, my copy of 46-95 does not have a list of contributors. I have a question about 22-46 though. It says Marek Twardowski in association with Boris Lemachko for Eastern Europe. Should both be listed as authors? Same in the 1860-1905 book where Erwin Sieche in association with Franz Ferdinand Bilzer for Austria-Hungary. Thanks again. Llammakey (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that we should list them as co-authors since we don't have anything for "in association". My copy of 47-95 shows contributors across from the Contents page with a note that the abbreviations for each person follow the section that they wrote. Do you have the single volume edition or the two-volume one?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been listing Bilzer and Sieche as co-authors on the Austro-Hungarian stuff I've written (as at SMS_Lissa#References). Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That will helpful whenever I get around to the DDs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Single volume. Pages are missing. It was a cheap copy I found at a used bookstore. I have the picture of the aircraft carrier, then nothing until the table of contents. There's some pages missing throughout the book too, along with some at the end. That's why I was asking about location, because if they were at the end, I was screwed there too. Llammakey (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that's a messed up copy! I'd be happy to look up whatever you need. In fact, I just did the French entry at German destroyer Z31 if you want to begin right away.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Will start bright and early tomorrow! I've been going back through the articles that have the oldest cleanup messages and trying to give them some cites so there is a ton of Finnish ships that have citation needed tags from 2008. I did a couple of class articles for them. French articles too, I did the Ouragan and Foudre class articles and gave them a base one over without going into too much detail. So going by my latest cleanups, Finnish and French would be great. (Yes it's a messed up book. Considering some of the books around it had some of the pictures cut out - Jane's, an international ships of the world - I didn't think the credits page was all that bad when I bought it.) Llammakey (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Finland is Karl-Eric Westerlund and Stephen C. Chumbley, pp. 91-94--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, I tried going through your article history to find some of the authors, both you and Parsecboy but you guys haven't done a lot of post WWII ships. Do you have the authors of the US and French sections of 46-95? I did find the Portugal one. Llammakey (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

French is in the Z31 article referenced above. US is Norman Friedman, pp. 544–633.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Completely missed that comment. Thanks again. Llammakey (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. Is the Sweden section of 46-95 also done by Westerlund and Chumbley? Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

yes, pp. 443–453 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Good morning! Is it possible to find out who did the Portugal section? Thanks again. Llammakey (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Llammakey: Sorry, I missed this earlier! Hugh Lyon and Chumbley, pp. 317-322--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The article Morane-Borel military monoplane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morane-Borel military monoplane for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The article Soviet destroyer Opytny you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Opytny for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet destroyer Opytny/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

On 10 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Morane-Borel military monoplane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Morane-Borel military monoplane participated in the Reims Military Aviation Competition, where it lost? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Morane-Borel military monoplane. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Morane-Borel military monoplane), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick facts happy new year ...

December songs

happy new year

Close

Thank you today for your share of CSS Baltic, introduced: "An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I do believe that you are correct. And thank you for your note.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel. I am planning on running HMS Argus (I49) as a TFA in February. Would you like to draft the blurb or prefer me to have a go? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It would probably be better to for you to draft it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sturmvogel 66, noticing your revert: since the commonscat should be inline when the external links section is very short, I will revert the edit. Thank you for your time and keeping a vigilent eye on the page. :-) Lotje (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. Do you have link to a policy on the matter?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no requirement, but there is a suggestion at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Links_to_sister_projects. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That's not something that I generally pay much attention to unless things are really egregious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Sturmvogel 66. I'm considering participating in the WikiCup next year; I left a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, but it looks like that page isn't very active. Can I ask if FA nominations started in 2022 but get promoted in 2023 count for WikiCup points? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the work has to be done during the Cup, not before. I wouldn't worry about it much, it generally only takes a few points to make it to the next round.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 Ah, so if I let the article continue to sit at PR until 2023, and then nominate it for FA then, would that count? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Depends if you've been working on it in December or January. Please don't try to game the system. Like I said, making it into the next round is trivially easy. Just do some qualifying work in January and keep things simple.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Right. I don't want to or intend on gaming the system, but seeing as the year is almost over, I thought it'd be a real shame of this article I've been working it didn't count towards any points. I put it up for PR a few days ago, and I plan on leaving it there for a few more weeks so that Hchc2009 (who is inactive for the most part) has a chance to respond. When I nominate it for FA (probably in the first/second week of January) after applying feedback from the PR, would that qualify as work for the WikiCup?

Sorry for asking so much, I just want to make sure I know what I'm getting myself into by signing up for the WikiCup. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, provided that the work you do in response to the PR happens in January.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you in return.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I picked up this article this afternoon to do the GA review, and you seemed to have taken it up as well. Was this intentional? Happy for you to do the review instead, just let me know of your intentions. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I saw something, but it wasn't signed, so I just went ahead. But feel free to continue with it. I've got plenty else on my plate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Sturmvogel 66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you as well!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Sturmvogel 66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And the same to you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 3 February 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/February 3, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, introduced (in 2012): "Converted from an ocean liner during World War I, Argus was the first aircraft carrier with a full-length flight deck. Too slow to keep up with the fleet and too small to carry many aircraft, she spent much of her career on secondary duties like deck-landing training and as an aircraft ferry. Argus was one of only two out of seven British pre-war carriers to survive World War II, although she was scrapped shortly afterwards."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The article Soviet destroyer Tashkent you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Tashkent for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet destroyer Tashkent/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I hope this finds you well. You started the GA review on the 29th of December, since them, you have not made any edits to the review page. If you wish to do so, I can find another reviewer. Otherwise, I would like an explanation as to why you've left it stale. I understand you may be busy with real-world issues, but please, shine some light on me yeah? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The article Soviet submarine S-99 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet submarine S-99 for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet submarine S-99/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The article French destroyer Renaudin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Renaudin for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Renaudin/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article French destroyer Dague you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Dague for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Dague/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Sturm! Hope all is well. Do you or Parsecboy have any sources that could back up these edits? I've come up with nothing, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something because the IP editor is being both unusually specific and persistent. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You're in luck; I copied all 6 volumes of Arguindeguy, Pablo E. (1972). Apuntes sobre los buques de la Armada Argentina (1810–1970) [Notes on the Ships of the Argentine Navy (1810–1970)] (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Comando en Jefe de la Armada. OCLC 5730374. back in August, so lemme see what numbers it gives.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Arguindeguy only has a limited set of figures which covers both ships. He confirms the 30500 deep displacement figure, but gives 23 knots for their speed. Doesn't give pp length but has 181.23 m (594 ft 7 in) for length, but I'm not sure if that's waterline or overall, though they should be roughly identical judging by the photos.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of any other sources for the ships other than the ones you've already used, so I dunno what the IP editor is using. Have you tried contacting him?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I did reach out, but the IP address changed... I'll try again and leave a hidden note in the article body. Thanks for checking! Such a strange little mystery. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I just thought of this, probably because we don't use it hardly at all, but maybe Jane's?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a good thought, but I own the 1914 edition and it doesn't list any differences between the two ships. Nothing shows up in the 1919 (post-completion, pre-refit) or 1929 edition (post-refit) either. All the figures are different from what Conway's gives. (There's also an interesting note about coal consumption in the 1929 edition that I haven't seen before...) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean the 1919 edition, not the one after they'd been converted to oil burners. Still, an interesting tidbit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My bad, that was a typo + I corrected the link above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The article French submarine Charles Brun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French submarine Charles Brun for comments about the article, and Talk:French submarine Charles Brun/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in a particularly close January round of the Military History Article Writing Contest, with 44 points from six articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

How would you recommend distinguishing this one from the other Smith 2010 in the bibliography (FWIW, the Carondelet one is 2010b because it's cited much less). Hog Farm _Talk 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Tinclads would be 2010a and Carondelet 2010b, adding the suffixes to the pub year in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Because it showed up in article space, rather than userspace. I've moved it there for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strange, but thanks for taking care of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for reverting me, if I went too far. I read WP:TRIVIAL, but so far I do not understand reason of removal. Entries were all in other articles of enwiki and most of them had sources. In addition, you also removed Russian submarine Kursk, which seems like an obvious addition to article. Any comment is appreciated. Stay safe, A09 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been a bunch of games on Kursk, but I don't think that I've ever seen any listing mentioning them in the articles that the games cover. I'll concede that I might have been wrong about deleting the submarine; feel free to restore that if you like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Board games were synthesed from articles about those board games and all had source (boardgamegeek.com), which seems like it's WP:RS for its specific field. Will restore submarine later on and thanks for your comment. A09 (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Sturmvogel 66! Your work on USS Missouri (BB-63) has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Friedrichshafen D.I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Friedrichshafen D.I for comments about the article, and Talk:Friedrichshafen D.I/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that Kashi should be stub > B 6 points rather than 5 points; Gorza should be none, rather than stub, > 6 points. Should these be changed or am I missing something? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, and I've made the needed changes already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice the opening quote and so I was wondering about the closing one. ThomasJa276 (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Soviet submarine K-222 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222 for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet submarine K-222/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For Uragan-class guard ship!! Unusual to see such detailed accounts of a Soviet class. Great!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I know, isn't it! With two out of three books covering the wartime Soviet Navy already out, I've now got enough data to do GA-quality articles on most everything of theirs afloat. Once I can get a reviewer to go through the text of Groza, I'll be able to start working on the rest of the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Are all the significant cruisers, especially with Red Banners or other awards, destroyers, anything else significant larger warship wise covered? Have we actually reached the stage where filling gaps on corvettes/large patrol craft are the priority? If not, that would be my thought on priorities.. What are your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All of the Soviet ships cruiser-size and up are GA quality or better. I've done a lot of the destroyers already, although there are plenty more to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The article French submarine Amiral Bourgois you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French submarine Amiral Bourgois for comments about the article, and Talk:French submarine Amiral Bourgois/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Soviet submarine K-68 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet submarine K-68 for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet submarine K-68/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note I have more than doubled the size of the List of torpedo boat classes of the Royal Navy in recent days. I'd welcome you taking a look at this and would welcome any observations, particularly of errors you spot. But kindly don't make major alterations without checking with me first. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that caught my eye was a typo on the order date for TB.98, the water-jet propelled boat. I left a cn tag to mark it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've put in a reference to the source material for TB.98. Luckily I have the complete typescript of David Lyon's work on the Thornycroft List. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Order year of 1980 or 1880?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reminder to respect WP:CITEVAR. I just thought that "Harvard refs without templates" and "Harvard refs with templates" are the same style, but I'm dummy and completely missed that adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates should be avoided. Thanks again~ a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Friedrichshafen FF.19 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.19 for comments about the article, and Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.19/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Friedrichshafen FF19.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit to French destroyer Magon you introduced an sfn reference {{sfn|Prévoteaux, I|2017|pages=111, 113}}, but no such source has been defined. This makes it impossible for anyone to look the reference up, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix this that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet another reason I despise harvnb and sfn formats!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As do I! Thanks for the quick response. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. On French destroyer Bisson, you cited Frievogel. I assume its the same source as the one used on French destroyer Renaudin, but before I copied over the source, I just wanted to double check with you. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch!! Yes, I meant the same source. But I apparently forgot to add it to most of the rest of the Bisson-class DDs. I've gone ahead and added it for the rest of them that needed it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Friedrichshafen FF.1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering if you could help me identify a Kriegsmarine vessel? Among some old pictures I inherited from my grandfather, I found an image of a German WW2 Kriegsmarine ship he served on during WW2. I know that he was based in Gotenhafen. Would it be okay if I send you the image? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but no promises about being able to ID the ship!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to send it to me as well - I might be able to help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Between us, I think that we have most larger ships covered. Something like a ex-civilian minesweeper or Vorpostenboot would be much harder to pin down.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, sent to both of you MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

One factoid I recall, my grandfather once mentioned that they frequently "played to be English", searching and hunting German submarines during training exercises MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's F1, lead ship of the F class escorts, FYI, early in her career. I replied in more detail in my email to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The F-class escort ship article is quite brief on the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The article German torpedo boat T1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T1 for comments about the article, and Talk:German torpedo boat T1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Kashi (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Kashi (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Kashi (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for going out of your way to complete my GA when I was unable to do so. You could so easily have failed it instead! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You were almost there when you needed some time off and the necessary changes were pretty trivial, so... I hope that you're able to give us some more time as I've enjoyed working with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your storming performance - 13 articles and 80 points - and first place finish in March with this award of the WikiChevrons. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, dude!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 20 reviews between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sturm. Five weeks ago you kindly did the source review for a FAC I had nominated, Battle of Utica (203 BC). I currently have another article from the Second Punic War at FAC, Battle of the Trebia, and I wondered if you fancied looking at the sources? Obviously, if time or inclination are not available that is no problem at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been picked up thanks. (Possibly by one of your TPSs?) Gog the Mild (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with a bar to this award in recognition of your continued thorough, detailed and actionable reviews at FAC. This work continues to be very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Friedrichshafen FF.31 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.31 for comments about the article, and Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.31/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Hansa-Brandenburg W.29 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hansa-Brandenburg W.29 for comments about the article, and Talk:Hansa-Brandenburg W.29/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Friedrichshafen FF.29 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.29 for comments about the article, and Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.29/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

On 18 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Friedrichshafen FF.19, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Friedrichshafen FF.19 became the first German aircraft to conduct successful tests with wireless telegraphy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Friedrichshafen FF.19. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Friedrichshafen FF.19), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

On 26 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Friedrichshafen FF.1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there was only one Friedrichshafen FF.1 aircraft and it was destroyed in a crash? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Friedrichshafen FF.1. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Friedrichshafen FF.1), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Soviet guard ship Groza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet guard ship Groza for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet guard ship Groza/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Friedrichshafen FF.35 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

On 3 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Soviet submarine K-222, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Soviet submarine K-222 (pictured) was the fastest submarine ever built? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet submarine K-222. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Soviet submarine K-222), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 21,786 views (1,815.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

So sorry for this. I must have accidentally hit the revert link and didn’t even realize I’d done so until I saw your restore in my watchlist. Thanks for understanding.  —Michael Z. 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have completed all your requested revisions, including a number of other wikilinks to ranks, places, political units, etc. All were good catches! Thanks very much.Tfhentz (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I have completed all additional revisions, except for adding a photo of a tombstone from Findagrave.com. All their images are copyrighted according to the website. Too bad because it is a nice photo.Tfhentz (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful review of Adamson Tannehill for GA status. I appreciate your efforts. I emailed FindaGrave to get permission to add their photo of his tombstone, and I will add it if I hear from them. --Tfhentz (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Japanese cruiser Yūbari you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Yūbari for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese cruiser Yūbari/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CaptainEek -- CaptainEek (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I confirmed the contest entry. I left a message on CaptainEek's talk page that I noted the promotion to GA but that the banner shells for the various projects still had the old assessments. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

And what is the objection with using a higher resolution photo of the HMS Lion? Podlesok86 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It may be higher resolution, but it's much darker and doesn't show the profile of the ship. Move it somewhere else in the article if you wish, but I prefer the infobox photos of my ship articles to give readers an idea of how the ship was laid out, either through a profile or an aerial view.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

On 16 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Japanese destroyer Teruzuki was sunk by a single torpedo to the stern? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Japanese destroyer Teruzuki (1941)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Momi (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Momi (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Momi (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Friedrichshafen FF.35 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.35 for comments about the article, and Talk:Friedrichshafen FF.35/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The article French destroyer Fronde you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Fronde for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Fronde/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Greetings,

this is the first time I've been told that the refbegin-refend templates are an accessbility issue. Is there some documentation somewhere? I don't necessarily disagree with the edit, just never have heard of it being a problem so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a formal requirement though I've argued that the templates should not reduce size at all since we have no need to conserve space as printed references do. I have been thanked for deleting them by at least one user who has some vision issues, so it is a real problem, though I didn't seem to make much headway with that argument a few years ago. I kinda wonder if people have been so habituated to smaller font sizes for footnotes and the like in printed books and articles that it's become a fundamental assumption that that's how things should look, despite WP:NOTPAPER. I've settled for deleting the templates wherever I encounter them unless they're doing something useful like setting column number or such like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On 9 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Soviet guard ship Groza, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that anti-aircraft defense for the Soviet guard ship Groza was supposed to be four single 37 mm 11-K guns, but bad relations with the UK left them with two PM M1910 guns instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet guard ship Groza. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Soviet guard ship Groza), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66,

Thanks for reverting my edit and pointing me to the overnight format for MOS:TOPRESENT. I hadn't noticed that format construct previously.

Have a great day!

Edward Bednar (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. The intricacies of the MOS always astonish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The article German torpedo boat T2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T2 for comments about the article, and Talk:German torpedo boat T2/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Actualcpscm -- Actualcpscm (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If I have not made a mistake in reading the history, the beginning entry for this article was start rather than B. Please check and revise if I am correct; let me know where I have gone wrong if I am not correct. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the mistake is mine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The article French destroyer Framée you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Framée for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Framée/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The article French destroyer Mousquet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Mousquet for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Mousquet/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
• Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
• Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The article French destroyer Pistolet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French destroyer Pistolet for comments about the article, and Talk:French destroyer Pistolet/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

On 18 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article French destroyer Fronde, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the French destroyer Fronde was wrecked after the 1906 Hong Kong typhoon (pictured), killing five of her crew members? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/French destroyer Fronde. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, French destroyer Fronde), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The article Tupolev Tu-91 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tupolev Tu-91 for comments about the article, and Talk:Tupolev Tu-91/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PizzaKing13 -- PizzaKing13 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The article HMS Bonaventure (31) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Bonaventure (31) for comments about the article, and Talk:HMS Bonaventure (31)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there Sturmvogel, would you mind checking out the copyright status for the following image? I plan to use it for the Z8 Bruno Heinemann article. Thanks.

e (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's bad; I'd bet that the uploader scanned the photo from somewhere else and perhaps cleaned it up and doesn't know that those actions don't really effect the original copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's understandable. Cheers e (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that I look at it more closely, it's a painting, not a photo. I'd suggest contacting the uploader to confirm that he made the painting and that he didn't just scan it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Browhatwhyamihere and Sturmvogel 66: The relevant edit summary over on German Wikipedia autotranslates to "Original photos of my grandfather (crew member)". From the EXIF data, I'm thinking it was a photo taken of another photo. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

.... which upon further investigation it feels unlikely to be their grandfather's photo, as it looks remarkably similar to this postcard (archive link if needed). Unless the postcard was a wartime altered image and the grandfather's photo was the original? (There's a pennant number in ours + buildings in the background, while the postcard has some clear signs of the pennant number being obscured.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good find! Somebody used that postcard as a base for our image, which is probably enough to assert copyright since the changes from the original are pretty significant. It's just a question of who made the changes, the uploader or someone else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious if it's the other way around! There's more mystery: the only other photo this editor uploaded to Commons is File:Z8 BrunoHeinemann Indienststellung.jpg, which as far as I can tell is the first time that photo has been uploaded to the internet. I found a site that shows the same commissioning ceremony from a similar angle, but it's a different photo. Could these be legitimate?

The site is on Wikipedia's blacklist, so I can't link it directly. Copy/paste this and remove the spaces: https:// erenow. net/ww/german-destroyers-of-world-war-ii/9.php.

Browhatwhyamihere, I'm now invested in figuring this out, so I'm happy to reach out to the editor if you haven't already. They have email enabled. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

An interesting discovery you have made, maybe a possible rabbit hole as to the image's origins! I'm more than glad to contact him but I'm also a bit shoddy when it comes to talking in German... (Edit: I've contacted him about the image, if he had scanned or painted it, and if he edited the eBay image or vice versa, so now we wait...)e (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out! Hopefully they respond soon. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ed It's been over a month, and no response has come in. Ah well, guess we'll never know. e (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Browhatwhyamihere: FYI, pings don't work if there isn't a four-tilde signature after them in the same edit. :-) (I caught this on my watchlist.) That's a shame, but I guess there's not much more we can do! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 September 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/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick facts my story today ...

September songs

my story today

Close

Thank you today for your share to the article, introduced (in 2021): "Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66! I noticed on the "RMS Otranto (1925)" article that you reverted my edit where I added a hyphen after the and the term "passengers" after it was suggested by AutoWikiBrowser (AWB).

The RegExTypoFix that is used by AutoWikiBrowser has a rule that a hyphen should be used between the number of passengers and the term "passengers" and considers it a typo if it is not.

From my own brief research on the topic, I have seen it both without a hyphen and with one. I have not reverted your edit; however, if you feel that this should not be hyphenated, I would recommend discussing it on the relevant talkpage (Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos) as AWB/RegExTypoFix is going to keep recommending placing hyphens in this instance unless it is changed. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me just say that in the case suggested by AutoWikiBrowser, a hyphen is appropriate because the number modifies passenger. In this case, however, 1909 refers to the year that the earlier Otranto was launched.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Would you have any objections to changing:

"The first was a 1909 passenger liner that in 1914 became the armed merchant cruiser HMS Otranto and in 1918 was lost as a result of a collision." to something like

"The first was a passenger liner completed in 1909 that, in 1914, became the armed merchant cruiser HMS Otranto and, in 1918, was lost as a result of a collision."

to clarify that the ship was built in the year 1909 rather than being a passenger liner that has a passenger capacity of 1909 people? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine, but normally all we normally do for predecessor ships is state something like "she was the second ship of her name to serve as a Royal Mail Ship".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Kiri (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Kiri (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Kiri (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for French aircraft carrier Béarn, French battleship Charles Martel, French battleship Liberté, Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, and French battleship Charlemagne. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The article French submarine Y you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French submarine Y for comments about the article, and Talk:French submarine Y/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Soviet submarine K-85 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet submarine K-85 for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet submarine K-85/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The article German torpedo boat T3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German torpedo boat T3 for comments about the article, and Talk:German torpedo boat T3/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		We really appreciate that you reviewed several GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The article French submarine Z you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French submarine Z for comments about the article, and Talk:French submarine Z/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the image in Commons for Aviatik C.VI usable? It is from a different angle but, to me, it does not look quite the same as the image at DFW C.V. Is that one usable? The DFW C.V article has few inline citations. I suppose that even if a few related facts could be repeated, it might be difficult to add them if you don't have the citations to support them. https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/aviatik.html has this entry "Aviatik C.VI (1917) An observation biplane which was reserved for the license built DFW C.V type." In my opinion it would be helpful to support a B by adding a source or two even if the information from them is repetitive. I think a B might be justified by "this is about all that can be said about this" and it is probably necessary to complete the sequence of articles about Aviatik. A few small additions could help. I will wait to see whether you can come up with anything more. Someone else might get to it sooner, of course. Donner60 (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The Commons image is a DFW C.V and maybe one actually license-built by Aviatik. There's a lot of confusion about the designation of the Aviatik-built DFWs and I think that I need to add that info, which ought to usefully fill out the article. Sadly, there's no more info on the actual Aviatik aircraft than I've given here as the entry in Herris's book is only a single page long, including two photos that I need to copy and upload with a fair use claim.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have given the B assessment. I am sure you will follow up with the photos. I think I need not have waited for that. Donner60 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I am revising the message I had left after looking at the current Aviatik assessment. A user, Ominae, struck my assessment leaving an assessment that had no comment which Hawkeye7 had left for an article about James Storrar. Ominae deleted the completed Storrar assessment. I mention this because it now appears as if Hawkeye7 left the assessment for the Aviatik article as if I had left none (or possibly removing mine). This is not what the sequence of edits shows. Ominae, a member of the project, asks for an assessment on one of his articles at this point on the page. I don't know what to make of all this but my last message appears incorrect, or changed, unless I leave this clarification. Ominae left no edit summary to explain this. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Hawkeye just forgot to actually update the talk page accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was unintentional and probably a mistake by someone. I only mentioned it because it made my original message to you look odd if not wrong. Donner60 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Dornier Do Y you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dornier Do Y for comments about the article, and Talk:Dornier Do Y/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've raised concerns on the talk page of the HMS Exeter article about recent additions - which include large scale quoting that may get the article into copyvio problems and certainly appears undue. As you pushed the article through GA, your opinion is welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Link here.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The article Nieuport Triplane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nieuport Triplane for comments about the article, and Talk:Nieuport Triplane/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Having recently gotten Error: {{HMS}} invalid control parameter: 7 (help) and Error: {{HMS}} invalid control parameter: 7 (help) to GA, I noticed that you've already brought Error: {{HMS}} invalid control parameter: 7 (help) and Revenge-class battleship (which had a cancelled Resistance) to GA. This leaves only Error: {{HMS}} invalid control parameter: 7 (help) left non-GA on the HMS Resistance SIA page. I wondered whether you believe the latter two articles to still be up to scratch, and whether this might be a possible Good Topic (if a SIA page can even be the basis for one)? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Revenge-class article is still in good shape, but I suspect that the ironclad needs some work as I haven't done much work on it in the last decade or so. I don't see why we couldn't do a good topic, although it's a pretty trivial reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rohrbach Ro IX Rofix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm just posting to let you know that List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 1. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

any reasons to remove Natter is featured in video game, Battlefield 1942 Secret Weapons? OrangeLark64 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's trivia--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The article MS Adzharistan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:MS Adzharistan for comments about the article, and Talk:MS Adzharistan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Japanese destroyer Kuwa (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Kuwa (1944) for comments about the article, and Talk:Japanese destroyer Kuwa (1944)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The beginning class is start rather than B, as I see it. Please let me know if you agree. I am not sure that the reviewer is allowed to change it so I think it would be better for you to change it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You're correct; I forgot that the reviewer upped it to B class before the review was finished. When I've reviewed contest noms, I've had to fix a few examples incorrect initial ratings myself, so don't worry about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The article French submarine X you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French submarine X for comments about the article, and Talk:French submarine X/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jalapeño -- Jalapeño (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Rohrbach Ro IX Rofix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rohrbach Ro IX Rofix for comments about the article, and Talk:Rohrbach Ro IX Rofix/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting this, I seem be having some issues with accidentally rollbacking random watchlist pages recently... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:John A. Hilger/GA2 appears to be stalled, waiting for your response. Could you take a look please? RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please either finish the review or declare that you are unable to complete it, so somebody else can pick it up. I see that you have been active editing so I assume you are seeing these messages. This review has been dragging on for over three months. It is unfair to the nominator to leave this without bringing it to completion one way or another. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, ref your reversion of a couple of changes I made. They were to improve readability, and assist people browsing with narrow browser formats. WP:DATEFORMAT allows for narrower formats in tables for this very reason. (Hohum ^@) 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess that I'm OK with doing that in tables in the main body, but I don't think that it's appropriate for infoboxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And to you as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sturmvogel 66 I see you changed some of my edits on Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō. You may not be familiar with the International System of Units where, when numbers get to large or too small it is common to change to a more appropriate prefix. Anyone familiar with the SI will know that 12,000,000 W is 12,000 kW is 12 MW (watts, kilowatts and Megawatts). In the above case 12 MW would be appropriate.

For controlling line breaks I would direct you to the Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS:NBSP. This prevents a line break, which depends on the width of the article on the reader's screen. You removed the "nbsp;" where they are needed per the MOS.

Using the convert template, "Convert" gives the unit spelling, "CVT" gives the symbol. CVT will have the same effect as "Abbr=on". I hope this helps. Avi8tor (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of the intricacies of the metric system and of the MOS. NBSP is not recommended for use in infoboxes where the possibilities of a line break are minimal at best. As for kW vs MW, the former is almost universally used in my sources and I've followed their practice. If you've reverted my changes, I ask that you self-revert them.

I will ask you why you changed the American spellings in which I wrote the article into British ones, failing to respect MOS:ENGVAR and the choice of the original author.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Avi8or seems to be under the impression that US spellings can only be used for US topics, which has also come up here. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd missed that. Thanks for fixing all this; I was getting ready to revert his changes absent any self-reversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

		2023 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar for being nominated for the 2023 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts throughout the year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Sturmvogel 66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

And to you as well, Chris!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks, Hawkeye.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen some variation around the AWB drone comments (a space to the left, no space to the left, a blank line above, no blank line above), and I'd like to confirm that/if this is the currently desired state:

* {{cite book|last=Roberts|first=Stephen S.|title=French Warships in the Age of Steam 1859–1914: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates|year=2021|location=Barnsley, UK|publisher=Seaforth Publishing |isbn=978-1-5267-4533-0}}
<!-- non-breaking space to keep AWB drones from altering the space before the navbox-->
{{Branlebas class destroyer}}

I whitespace-separate navs as best I can (when unbulleted, narrowly used, special-case reference/external link templates don't get in the way, anyway), and can add this to my cleanup list when performing non-cosmetic edits.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not something I pay much attention so long the article displays a blank line between the bibliography and the navbox. I don't use AWB myself so I'm not sure if the code is really necessary. The extra space is probably a legacy of me deleting excessive lines of whitespace or misplaced footer elements and can be deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've always wondered about that hidden comment myself. I don't use AWB either, but I'd wager that it's a vestigial thing. I didn't add it to Italian corvette Magenta, but it displays the same as French destroyer Gabion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

AWB's WP:GenFixes won't touch that line, whether it's blank, or if it has a comment, but anyone can write any code to do whatever they want in addition to that. In my experience, it's very easy to write inadequate and/or greedy WP:REGEX, and I've seen the result of that both in my edit box, and in others' saved edits.

I have fixed a noticeable number of ship pages missing that blank line when no comment was present. I didn't go back and see if that comment was present prior to the blank line removal (or perhaps the comment and/or line was missing since page inception), and who removed the blank line, to see if it was part of one editor's run (easy to find & fix), or if it was distributed over many editors over a long time (hard to find & fix), so the comment at least appears have to have some value. If someone wants to do all that digging, go for it, but I don't think it's worth the effort. In the meantime, I don't think a concerted effort needs be made either way, to remove nor proliferate the comment - i.e. it's up the regular editors of the page to include it or not.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding page layout, the blank line is certainly WP:COSMETIC, and is as useful as including a blank line before a ==Heading== (i.e. it's useful to the editor when they are editing). Some of that usefulness is removed, though, when the blank line is filled with comment text, so...that makes it up to the regulars imo.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive. I think you might be interested to look at the BamBot list or take a look at [instructions section] to find some articles for practicing your citing skills. Otherwise, I wish you good luck for the drive! You'll need it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent idea of putting the coastal defence ship Äran forward as a Good Article and the work you have done so far to improve the article. I have added a Construction and career section and put it up for review as you suggested. simongraham (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant! I see that you've done Wasa as well. Nominate it once I'm done with Äran and I review it as well.

Thank you. simongraham (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the GA for Äran. You may also see that I have amended HSwMS Wasa in line with that review and submitted it too. simongraham (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you be interested in collaborating on the smaller Swedish ironclads? I'm not sure that your Swedish-language books provide any information on them considering their unique status, but I built articles on them based on whatever I could get from English-language sources many years ago. They're grossly incomplete, but it would be nice to get them up to GA quality as co-nominations if you're interested. And would improving the more modern Swedish ships together be of interest as well? I don't know if you have Swedish-language sources on them as well, but I could only maybe get Gotland to GA from the sources I have immediately to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds an excellent idea. There are quite a few to do. simongraham (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll update the ironclad's articles first so you can add whatever you have available whenever you're ready and then start work on cleaning up and expanding the 20th century ships. I have a topic box for the ironclads built already so we can track our progress at User:Sturmvogel 66/Ironclads and can build others if you find them helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have done some work on new articles for Niord and Oden. I would value any additions your would like to make before I also work on Thor. simongraham (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The article Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937) for comments about the article, and Talk:Soviet destroyer Sokrushitelny (1937)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The article Gotha WD.11 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gotha WD.11 for comments about the article, and Talk:Gotha WD.11/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, welcome, welcome Sturmvogel 66! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:39, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Thanks for your input on the article talk page. I also raised referencing generally at Wikipedia talk:Citing_sources#Why are changes to/from citation templates not allowed? where there has been quite a volume of comments, and it's still ongoing...
Within Vasa (ship) itself, you might have realised that some of this is down to difficult interactions with another user who has not been editing for the past 4 or 5 days (perhaps they've had the same problem as me – I was wiped out by covid for a few days and still not 100%.) I am hoping they will be back soon so that we can resolve things in some sort of amicable manner, but input from other editors is surely going to help.

On a technical note, what reasons do you have for not liking the {{sfn}} template? It is not a first choice for my editing, but I will use it if its use is already established in an article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I forget the details, but it's not as flexible as I'd need it to be and it requires more typing than my own preferred author (disambiguation), page style. I'll have to take a look at the discussion; I know that I've commented more than once on the topic in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you reverted my edits on the page despite being properly cited, Could you tell reason bhind it? I admit that deleting biblograpy was a bad call but my first edit was correct. So could you add the info which I added? Thanks Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your change because you violated WP:CITEVAR when you changed all the cites to full title inline cites. Your changes need to conform to the existing citation format; you just can't unilaterally change them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about that policy and thought it would more easier for people navigate but I get the problem about my edit. I also added info about ship being captured by germans and was renamed. Could you readd it? Changeworld1984 (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Already done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Changeworld1984 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1 for comments about the article, and Talk:Courtois-Suffit Lescop CSL-1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Gallaudet D-2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gallaudet D-2 for comments about the article, and Talk:Gallaudet D-2/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing your edit[], I thought I ought to apologise for dragging you into this discussion. Disputes in Wikipedia are, at best, tedious and unhelpful, which is why I rarely stick up for my point of view in such instances. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I chose to get involved };-) You just have to chose your battles carefully. While I certainly prefer a separate section for notes, they're not something I'm prepared to go to the mattresses over. I have my own issues over which I'm prepared to do just that, and have done so in the past, but they're quite limited in number to avoid energy-sucking imbroglios.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I am motivated by the 472 pages of large format book that I have been reading as a source for the article – at least that's what I keep telling myself.

Incidentally, are you someone who would know a good source for summarising the lengthy transition of naval tactics and technology for use of canon? I am thinking the history, in Northern Europe, goes from medieval use, through the invention of the gunport (allegedly in 1501 by someone from Brittany), to multiple canon with the largest pointing fore and aft, then a focus on a broadside of consistently sized canon (as in the Vasa, but I believe there is an English wreck from Elizabethan times with standardised canon – can't remember the name of the ship for the life of me), but still without the rapid rate of fire and boarding being the main method of resolving a fight. At a guess I'd say rapid broadsides depended on the line of battle, efficient signalling and larger gun crews which all arrived some time in the 18th century – but then my vague recollections are not sufficient. N. A.M. Rodger (1996) THE DEVELOPMENT OF BROADSIDE GUNNERY, 1450–1650, The Mariner's Mirror, 82:3, 301-324, DOI: 10.1080/00253359.1996.10656604 is the best source that I have at the moment. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not a period that I know much about, but perhaps a couple of volumes of Conway's History of the Ship might serve? Try The Earliest Ships: The Evolution of Boats into Ships and The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. And perhaps these books on the Tudor Navy: The Navy of Henry VIII & Elizabeth I: English Naval Wafare, Exploration & Vessels during the 16th Century, Tudor Warships (1): Henry VIII’s Navy, The Warship Mary Rose: The Life & Times of King Henry VIII's Flagship, and The Tudor Warship Mary Rose might be of use. You'll definitely need something on the evolution of junks, cogs, caravels and carracks as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit taken aback by what's happening at the Vasa article. I thought the issue of switching established ref standards and other largely subjective choices was something the community had decided to put to rest. I thought we had decided as a community to stick to live and let live-standard.

And now I'm getting ANI threats on my own talkpage for throwing my hands up in frustration over the whole thing. Peter ^Isotalo 06:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Beats the hell out of me. But that's one reason I decided not to try and engage the latest commenter in more detail. Personally, I'd refuse to engage him any further and focus on making the article more consistent since I don't think anyone's going to fight you over your preference for consolidated notes and citations anymore.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. Appreciate the article input as well. Peter ^Isotalo 07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you recently updated a publish date for Whitley. However, a number of footnotes still point to the original date, landing eight articles on the harv error list. I trust you will update the footnotes, too. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I likely wouldn't have noticed until I began detailed work on the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)