This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
HMS Neptune is a single ship class. We should combine the class and individual ship articles, n'est-ce pas?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I just got a batch of Warship Internationals and one of them has an article on the A-H Monarch class ships. They're pretty consistently called coast defense ships there as well as by Conway's. And at 5600 tons it's hard to argue with them. The Kronzprinz class ships are called barbette ships by Conway's and have tonnages ranging between 5075 and 6830. I think that all of these really aren't pre-dreadnoughts and should be dropped from the project, which would leave the Habsburg class as the first A-H ships that we cover. What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Prompted by MBK004, I've nominated the Invincible class battlecruisers for GT. Please feel free to comment on the nom at WP:GTC.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm dropping this note and then running. 12 articles under this project scope rated GA or higher have multiple issues. See list here. -- Brad ( talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I was looking through the French section of Conway's this morning (I'm thinking about working on Bretagne-class battleship), and I noticed there's three BC proposals on page 200. It doesn't look like there's enough info to warrant three separate articles, but we could probably combine it into a 1913 French battlecruiser proprosals like the Dutch example. Thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 13:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The discovery of Japanese battleship Yamato was recently added to the article, which is an A-Class article. I have some pause about the reliability of the sources that were used for this. See the edit: [1]. Also, this new section as well as the text added to the lead could use some heavy-duty copyediting. - MBK 004 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe we ever made a decision about whether we were going to include planned classes which were hoaxes as part of the Cold War, the Soviets duped the western world with their K-1000 battleship. - MBK 004 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been entertaining the idea of writing to the eight U.S. battleship museums to see if they can help us push some of these articles to FA status, and I have also thought about writing a letter to the U.S. Navy to see if we can get some assistance from them on matters like engine plants and armor specs. I wanted to bounce the idea off the rest of the members and see what everyone thought before going ahead with this though, while I think it could be a worthwhile endeavor and could help lay the ground work for museum displays like what the anthropology project has done it could also backfire on us if we are not careful. What do the rest of you think? Should we do this? TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How useful is this if I've the three relevant volumes of Conway's?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I've started work on this article and see no real justification for article on each of the unfinished ships when I can handle them with a single paragraph each. Unless some one thinks otherwise, I'll merge the Soviet battleship Sovietskaya Ukraina article into the class article in the next day or so. I'd appreciate it if someone with admin rights would go ahead and delete the Template:Sovietsky Soyuz class battleship as it won't be needed any further.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see a purpose for a navbox that doesn't lead anywhere, so I'll probably rename it and use it for some other class at some point.
This isn't quite the proper forum, but we probably have access to the best naval libraries available to Wikipedians and I'm hoping that somebody has, or has access to, Friedman's book on US carriers, or at least a Jane's Fighting Ships. I'm doing the GAR for the Nimitz class CVs and I'm perturbed that the editor's tried to write it without even looking at Friedman's book. From what I remember it wasn't particularly good on the Nimitz's, doubtless because of security restrictions, but the editor hasn't used any other print sources either. He's done a very creditable job using the net, but the design and development is pretty skimpy and, I feel, likely to cause me to fail the article for completeness. OTOH, if there's really nothing published with the amount of detail that I'm used to for ships without top secret notices plastered all over them then I can pass it in good conscience. He's mentioned that his local library (in the UK) is pretty poor, which explains the lack of print references, but is there a UK equivalent to Interlibrary Loan that he can use to try and get access to some of these books? Or can someone who has access help him out?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
With Wernerbot offline at the moment I am interested in knowing whether anyone would object to having Mizabot pickup the slack. The bot already archives the main milhist talk page and the talk page for USS Constitution, so it shouldn't be too hard to configure this page for archiving as well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This question applies mainly to the American battleships, I was wondering if we could clarify where redirects like BB-1, BB-2, BB-3, etc. should redirect to. While this isn't much of an issue with a ship like the USS New York (BB-34), I know I recently redirected BB-1 and BB-2 to BB1 and BB2 respectively, but now I'm not so certain. The main trouble come from the show Big Brother which is apparently abbreviated BB#. I guess the question comes down to whether those early battleships should be placed on the unhyphenated disambiguation page with the hyphenated hull redirecting there, or should the hyphenated page go directly to the battleship. I'm of the opinion all pages (battleships and Big Brothers) should be disambiged on the same page, but I wanted to get some other input as well. AP1787 ( talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on what happened between the June 1924 tests on Tosa (documented here in my sandbox) and when she was sunk on 9 February 1925 in the Bungo Strait? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone with access to JSTOR or some such to send me a copy of the article by Nicholas A. Lambert. "Our Bloody Ships or Our Bloody System", Journal of Military History 62:1 (Jan 1998) pp. 29-56? I'd like to get this before I try and kick my British BC articles to ACR.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to ask that if any of y'all have a little bit of spare time that there are a number of OMT-related articles currently awaiting assessments and GARs. Help me turn our front page a little bit greener and replace those ugly reds and oranges!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there any references we need that no one has? I'll be happy to buy one and fill in some details. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference for these ships by Norman Friedman can be found here: http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/story.asp?STORY_ID=2147 . Nor sure how long it'll stay up... — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've finally knocked out SMS Goeben, I whipped up List of battlecruisers of Germany. I've never written a list article, and am not really familiar with how to write one that would meet the featured list standards. Can anyone take a look at it and help me out a bit? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the encompassing featured topic which you have tentatively laid-out at User:Parsecboy/ISG, I have invited Rst20xx ( talk · contribs) to make suggestions here on any issues with the topic and the possibility of utilizing sub-topics as well or not. - MBK 004 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Or you could lay it out as one big topic, like this:
Given that there are 13 articles involved, which is a perfectly reasonable number for a topic, I would favour one big topic. But as far as I can see, these are the two options that are possible - rst20xx ( talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That cricket FT was contentious on the issue of subtopics, and why it lasted for so long. The reason it wasn't split was because the majority of the support was registered before the split was suggested, not to mention the new arrangement of the articles in the topic box now (which I don't think does as much for our purposes of presentation). We have already established a precedent with the class topics, so those will be expected from now on regardless (either we nominate them when they are ready or someone else will). It is more logical to present a topic of the classes capped by a list with the subtopics covering each class. There could also be larger topics on the design strategies, for instance for the US there could be a topic with Standard type battleship as its capstone. - MBK 004 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Currently most, if not all, of the Russian ships captured at Tsushima or Port Arthur are listed under their Japanese names. I'm of a mind to change these back to their Russian names as the Japanese did not use them very long or as first line ships so that I feel that the Russian names are more significant. I know that with the redirects it really doesn't matter so much, but it still bugs me. What do y'all think? I suspect that a simple move to their Russian name would be problematic because of the original redirects. Do I need to merge them or what? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in knowing what kind of range we should adopt for conversion templates being used for our article's scopes. Apparently I have all kinds of ranges in the Iowa class article (now largely removed), but I would like to see those ranges readded and would appreciate some input on how to make that happen in manner that produces correct ranges and uses units everyone agrees on. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Battle of Jutland has been created, as some of their scope will inevitably include some of our pages I thought I would make everyone aware of this. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
might be good for wp:FPC. Nergaal ( talk) 22:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have got access to this article? Postscript on the Szent Istvan by Graham Norton; History Today, Vol. 48, June 1998 I need it to round out my article on Szent Istvan.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to test the water here, would there be any interest in creating a portal for the project? All things considered, we have enough articles to justify a task force practically, it would not be too much of a stretch to image that we could gather enough notable material to create a portal for the project. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with using Wikinews in a portal. Can you show me one that does this? bahamut0013 words deeds 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of categories and talk page tagging, that is on Kirill's to-do list with {{
WPMILHIST}}
, see this discussion:
Wikipedia_talk:MHCOORD#WP:MILHIST_template_and_Special_Projects -
MBK
004
03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That looks good bahamut. JC, two thoughts: there will be virtually no new news about battleships and I highly doubt there are any panoramas. :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just realized that we have left these vessels out of the new portal. Is the plan to create Portal:Battlecruisers as well for those articles? There is probably sufficient FA/A/GAs and a couple FPs available for that one. - MBK 004 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the graph and the stub/start totals, but what happened to the B-class articles? Did they get lumped in with one of the other categories, or did you forget about them?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obtrusive, but Requests for Feedback did not produce anything, and I don't think the general or MilHist peer review headers will work for somthing that is in the userspace. Should I move User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) to it's mainspace home, which is currently a redirect to the class page. Any last few tips (I think I have taken into account User: Sturmvogel 66's comment).
TIA,
Buggie111 ( talk) 13:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
One of my frequent comments on the articles which are being produced on World War I-era British and German battleships is that they often provide very limited coverage of their activities after the Battle of Jutland. While it is true that sources generally skip over this period, the ships didn't just sit at anchor. For instance, the Australian official history provides maps of HMAS Australia's activities in 1917 and 1918 which suggest that she spent a lot of time at sea, particularly in the later year (the relevant chapter is online here, but beware that it's a 3 MB download). The British official history also devotes two volumes to the RN's post-Jutland activities, which include the operations of the Grand Fleet - large libraries in Commonwealth contries should have a set of these volumes, and if not they can be purchased online here and here for the the fairly modest price of £18. While these books still don't devote a great deal of space to naval operations in the North Sea (particularly in 1917), they should allow some expansion and provide useful context. I think that Germany also produced an official history of the war, and this could be a useful source for information. I'm sure that there are also other sources which can be drawn on (surely someone has written a history of the tensions in the German fleet which led to mutiny in November 1918, for instance). Nick-D ( talk) 06:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
On the German experience there is Daniel Horn's The German Naval Mutinies of World War I, and his edited edition of War, Mutiny, and Revolution in the German Navy; the World War I Diary of Seaman Richard Stumpf is a useful companion. For a more general look at the Imperial German Navy's end is David Woodward's The Collapse of Power: Mutiny in the High Seas Fleet. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Another general reference which may be useful is Prados, John (2009). "Twilight of the High Seas Fleet". Naval History. 23 (2). Annapolis: United States Naval Institute. - this is available on ProQuest Nick-D ( talk) 08:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a lazy slacker right now, but I'd like to know if it would be possible for me to start working on phase 2,3 and 4 layouts in my userspace, so as to be able to port them to the project page instantly if we manage to get articles like USS_Constellation_(CC-2) to FA. Any thoughts? Buggie111 ( talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I know. You didn't have to say so after your commenting at the Battlecruisers of Germany FT dsicussion. I got the point there. Buggie111 ( talk) 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The wonderful Hyperwar site has recently digitalised the US Navy publication 'Bureau of Ordnance: Guns and Mounts' which is available online here. Does OMT have a 'resources' section or similar where this kind of reference can be listed? Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. To complete Lexington-class battlecruiser and USS Hawaii (CB-3), I'm going to need Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History OCLC 10949320. The problem is that the closest library that holds it is not in Michigan (ie outside of inter-library loan), and the cheapest copy I've ever seen is upwards of $160, way too high for me. Would anyone have access to it and be willing to collaborate on at least one of the articles? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The individual articles of the South Dakota class battleship (1920) need to be redirected to the class article. But this isn't a pure blank and redirect since the content of the individual articles needs to be incorporated into the class article first. - MBK 004 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on List of battleships of Germany, and I've been thinking about the planned H-class designs from WWII. I'm a little unhappy with how our articles are set up right now, with just H class battleship (1939) and H class battleship (1944). Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 notes there were designs from 1941, 42, and 43; the 1944 article discusses these, as well as the 1939 as the starting point. I think it would make a lot more sense to have just one comprehensive article like H class battleship proposals, similar to the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article. Any thoughts on this? Parsecboy ( talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I made a stub on battleships of Greece. It's now a redirect to Decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. What happened? Rin tin tin 1996 ( talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I had changed the ships that were noted as redirects in these two sections to "Redirect class", then it occured to me that in so doing I couldn't be sure if the "Start class" article count would be correct. Should these entries in the table be listed as "Redirect class" or "Start class"? - The Bushranger ( talk) 07:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Join it, if you're interested: http://www.facebook.com/navalhistory?ref=nf They post some interesting stuff. Most or all of it is already available at history.navy.mil, but this draws your attention to photos you may have missed. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to bring this up earlier, but we should establish a consensus for a position on the inclusion or exclusion of the Orlan-class large missile cruisers (NATO reporting name Kirov-class battlecruisers). While I admit that the idea of the scope is to cover gunships, from both a PR standpoint and an American/NATO mentality standpoint, these missile ships are battlecruisers for all intents and purposes. Sooner or later, someone's going to bring that up; and I prefer we gain some consensus for their inclusion/exclusion before we get asked about it. To this end, I've opened up a straw poll. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
While pondering the tables on the project page, I noticed that the earlier Dutch "coast defense ships" aren't included. Now, including CDSes would open up massive cans o' worms, however De Zeven Provinciën, at least, is counted as a Battleship in Jane's Fighting Ships of World War One - along with its two predecessors - and they, along with the Swedish Svierge class, are as much battleships as the Greek Hydra class, which is included. Thoughts? - The Bushranger ( talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if lists were supposed to be included in the "Total" number, so I counted them. But I went through all the entries in the tables on the page and counted them up, since I'd noticed occasionally some of the entries in the -class sections of the "Where we Stand" table were changed without "Total" being changed. Now though those numbers match the lists. Whew!
...And also, there's now one hundred! One hundred articles and lists of GA status or higher! Ha ha ha ha!- The Bushranger ( talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Might this list i recently created be pertinent to the project? XavierGreen ( talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The offer is to "get Kriegsmarine to GA, then FA status". WP:SHIPS barnstar up for grabs here :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've taken it up, FAYGI. (for all you guy's information) Buggie111 ( talk) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Buggie111's work on the Regina Elena-class BBs has caused me notice that the stats for these ships in Jane's differ significantly from those in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. I've never seen this, but I have seen the equivalent airplane book which is nothing more that reprinted extracts of contemporary volumes with huge reliability issues. Does anyone else have this or has seen it. Can anyone compare it to a source of known reliability like Burt, Friedman or Raven & Roberts? If there is a problem, then I guess we'll have to post a notice of its unreliability so as not to confuse editors.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I just checked out the stats for Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes' run in the selected anniversaries section on the 17th; she received almost 28k hits over the 17th and 18th. :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As I was wandering around project page today, I saw a comment next to USS Washington by a user named Chris141496. His edits migth be in good faith, but I personally think that we should redirect all articles about non-complete battleships. If Tosa, which is currently in ed's sandbox, coes out shining, then we might do somthing differently. Also, someone sould give a friendly pointer on Chris141496 's talkpage about not having enough notabulity or refs to create and article like USS South Dakota (BB-49), for which he currently has a user subpage dedicated. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't have e-mail enabled, I'm just asking for someone with that book to round out User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). I don't know how useful it would be, but I think it should give somthing. Thanks! Buggie111 ( talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Scribd.com is an interesting site. Search for "battleship," and you'll get many amateur powerpoints, Google Books-like limits for some books (the ones uploaded by publishing companies) ... and some copyvio'd books from normal users. Anyway, enjoy; be sure to save them in case they are deleted.
Tangent point: Parsec, take a look at this :D — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Would K-1000 battleship qualify? I know it's about a hoax, but it's still about a battleship. Thoughts?
I was wondering what will be the elad article for the final topic? Capital ship? Battleship? List of battleships? List of battlecruisers, Dreadnought, Battlecruiser? Some of these are at FA but others may need work. I'm confused. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the note on List of battleships of the United States Navy that says "even battleships BB 72 through BB 78 were projected in 1942. Armament was to consist of 8 × 18 in (4x2), 20 x 5 in (10x2). The project did not proceed past the drawing stage; none were ordered." This should have an article at some point, shouldn't it? - The Bushranger ( talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned this up a little, but I'm not at all sure that this is honestly notable since it appears to have been strictly Fisher's paper project. Roberts, Campbell and Burt don't even mention this so I'm fairly certain that the DNC never even put pen to paper to actually design it. To my mind that speculative nature puts it beyond the pale of our project as even the Dutch, German and Japanese projects that we do include actually had a naval architect invest design time (with the possible exception of the late-war German projects). What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
USS Recruit is something that should probably be added to Phase V (and is, right now as I type, up for DYK!). - The Bushranger ( talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm very much minded to delete this stub as it incorrectly groups together French battleship Bouvet, French battleship Jauréguiberry and French battleship Masséna. All of which differed significantly from each other in terms of armor and superstructure arrangements. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
HMS Neptune is a single ship class. We should combine the class and individual ship articles, n'est-ce pas?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I just got a batch of Warship Internationals and one of them has an article on the A-H Monarch class ships. They're pretty consistently called coast defense ships there as well as by Conway's. And at 5600 tons it's hard to argue with them. The Kronzprinz class ships are called barbette ships by Conway's and have tonnages ranging between 5075 and 6830. I think that all of these really aren't pre-dreadnoughts and should be dropped from the project, which would leave the Habsburg class as the first A-H ships that we cover. What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Prompted by MBK004, I've nominated the Invincible class battlecruisers for GT. Please feel free to comment on the nom at WP:GTC.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm dropping this note and then running. 12 articles under this project scope rated GA or higher have multiple issues. See list here. -- Brad ( talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I was looking through the French section of Conway's this morning (I'm thinking about working on Bretagne-class battleship), and I noticed there's three BC proposals on page 200. It doesn't look like there's enough info to warrant three separate articles, but we could probably combine it into a 1913 French battlecruiser proprosals like the Dutch example. Thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 13:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The discovery of Japanese battleship Yamato was recently added to the article, which is an A-Class article. I have some pause about the reliability of the sources that were used for this. See the edit: [1]. Also, this new section as well as the text added to the lead could use some heavy-duty copyediting. - MBK 004 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe we ever made a decision about whether we were going to include planned classes which were hoaxes as part of the Cold War, the Soviets duped the western world with their K-1000 battleship. - MBK 004 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been entertaining the idea of writing to the eight U.S. battleship museums to see if they can help us push some of these articles to FA status, and I have also thought about writing a letter to the U.S. Navy to see if we can get some assistance from them on matters like engine plants and armor specs. I wanted to bounce the idea off the rest of the members and see what everyone thought before going ahead with this though, while I think it could be a worthwhile endeavor and could help lay the ground work for museum displays like what the anthropology project has done it could also backfire on us if we are not careful. What do the rest of you think? Should we do this? TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How useful is this if I've the three relevant volumes of Conway's?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I've started work on this article and see no real justification for article on each of the unfinished ships when I can handle them with a single paragraph each. Unless some one thinks otherwise, I'll merge the Soviet battleship Sovietskaya Ukraina article into the class article in the next day or so. I'd appreciate it if someone with admin rights would go ahead and delete the Template:Sovietsky Soyuz class battleship as it won't be needed any further.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see a purpose for a navbox that doesn't lead anywhere, so I'll probably rename it and use it for some other class at some point.
This isn't quite the proper forum, but we probably have access to the best naval libraries available to Wikipedians and I'm hoping that somebody has, or has access to, Friedman's book on US carriers, or at least a Jane's Fighting Ships. I'm doing the GAR for the Nimitz class CVs and I'm perturbed that the editor's tried to write it without even looking at Friedman's book. From what I remember it wasn't particularly good on the Nimitz's, doubtless because of security restrictions, but the editor hasn't used any other print sources either. He's done a very creditable job using the net, but the design and development is pretty skimpy and, I feel, likely to cause me to fail the article for completeness. OTOH, if there's really nothing published with the amount of detail that I'm used to for ships without top secret notices plastered all over them then I can pass it in good conscience. He's mentioned that his local library (in the UK) is pretty poor, which explains the lack of print references, but is there a UK equivalent to Interlibrary Loan that he can use to try and get access to some of these books? Or can someone who has access help him out?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
With Wernerbot offline at the moment I am interested in knowing whether anyone would object to having Mizabot pickup the slack. The bot already archives the main milhist talk page and the talk page for USS Constitution, so it shouldn't be too hard to configure this page for archiving as well. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This question applies mainly to the American battleships, I was wondering if we could clarify where redirects like BB-1, BB-2, BB-3, etc. should redirect to. While this isn't much of an issue with a ship like the USS New York (BB-34), I know I recently redirected BB-1 and BB-2 to BB1 and BB2 respectively, but now I'm not so certain. The main trouble come from the show Big Brother which is apparently abbreviated BB#. I guess the question comes down to whether those early battleships should be placed on the unhyphenated disambiguation page with the hyphenated hull redirecting there, or should the hyphenated page go directly to the battleship. I'm of the opinion all pages (battleships and Big Brothers) should be disambiged on the same page, but I wanted to get some other input as well. AP1787 ( talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on what happened between the June 1924 tests on Tosa (documented here in my sandbox) and when she was sunk on 9 February 1925 in the Bungo Strait? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone with access to JSTOR or some such to send me a copy of the article by Nicholas A. Lambert. "Our Bloody Ships or Our Bloody System", Journal of Military History 62:1 (Jan 1998) pp. 29-56? I'd like to get this before I try and kick my British BC articles to ACR.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to ask that if any of y'all have a little bit of spare time that there are a number of OMT-related articles currently awaiting assessments and GARs. Help me turn our front page a little bit greener and replace those ugly reds and oranges!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there any references we need that no one has? I'll be happy to buy one and fill in some details. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference for these ships by Norman Friedman can be found here: http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/story.asp?STORY_ID=2147 . Nor sure how long it'll stay up... — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've finally knocked out SMS Goeben, I whipped up List of battlecruisers of Germany. I've never written a list article, and am not really familiar with how to write one that would meet the featured list standards. Can anyone take a look at it and help me out a bit? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the encompassing featured topic which you have tentatively laid-out at User:Parsecboy/ISG, I have invited Rst20xx ( talk · contribs) to make suggestions here on any issues with the topic and the possibility of utilizing sub-topics as well or not. - MBK 004 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Or you could lay it out as one big topic, like this:
Given that there are 13 articles involved, which is a perfectly reasonable number for a topic, I would favour one big topic. But as far as I can see, these are the two options that are possible - rst20xx ( talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That cricket FT was contentious on the issue of subtopics, and why it lasted for so long. The reason it wasn't split was because the majority of the support was registered before the split was suggested, not to mention the new arrangement of the articles in the topic box now (which I don't think does as much for our purposes of presentation). We have already established a precedent with the class topics, so those will be expected from now on regardless (either we nominate them when they are ready or someone else will). It is more logical to present a topic of the classes capped by a list with the subtopics covering each class. There could also be larger topics on the design strategies, for instance for the US there could be a topic with Standard type battleship as its capstone. - MBK 004 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Currently most, if not all, of the Russian ships captured at Tsushima or Port Arthur are listed under their Japanese names. I'm of a mind to change these back to their Russian names as the Japanese did not use them very long or as first line ships so that I feel that the Russian names are more significant. I know that with the redirects it really doesn't matter so much, but it still bugs me. What do y'all think? I suspect that a simple move to their Russian name would be problematic because of the original redirects. Do I need to merge them or what? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in knowing what kind of range we should adopt for conversion templates being used for our article's scopes. Apparently I have all kinds of ranges in the Iowa class article (now largely removed), but I would like to see those ranges readded and would appreciate some input on how to make that happen in manner that produces correct ranges and uses units everyone agrees on. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Battle of Jutland has been created, as some of their scope will inevitably include some of our pages I thought I would make everyone aware of this. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
might be good for wp:FPC. Nergaal ( talk) 22:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have got access to this article? Postscript on the Szent Istvan by Graham Norton; History Today, Vol. 48, June 1998 I need it to round out my article on Szent Istvan.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to test the water here, would there be any interest in creating a portal for the project? All things considered, we have enough articles to justify a task force practically, it would not be too much of a stretch to image that we could gather enough notable material to create a portal for the project. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with using Wikinews in a portal. Can you show me one that does this? bahamut0013 words deeds 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of categories and talk page tagging, that is on Kirill's to-do list with {{
WPMILHIST}}
, see this discussion:
Wikipedia_talk:MHCOORD#WP:MILHIST_template_and_Special_Projects -
MBK
004
03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That looks good bahamut. JC, two thoughts: there will be virtually no new news about battleships and I highly doubt there are any panoramas. :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just realized that we have left these vessels out of the new portal. Is the plan to create Portal:Battlecruisers as well for those articles? There is probably sufficient FA/A/GAs and a couple FPs available for that one. - MBK 004 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the graph and the stub/start totals, but what happened to the B-class articles? Did they get lumped in with one of the other categories, or did you forget about them?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obtrusive, but Requests for Feedback did not produce anything, and I don't think the general or MilHist peer review headers will work for somthing that is in the userspace. Should I move User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) to it's mainspace home, which is currently a redirect to the class page. Any last few tips (I think I have taken into account User: Sturmvogel 66's comment).
TIA,
Buggie111 ( talk) 13:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
One of my frequent comments on the articles which are being produced on World War I-era British and German battleships is that they often provide very limited coverage of their activities after the Battle of Jutland. While it is true that sources generally skip over this period, the ships didn't just sit at anchor. For instance, the Australian official history provides maps of HMAS Australia's activities in 1917 and 1918 which suggest that she spent a lot of time at sea, particularly in the later year (the relevant chapter is online here, but beware that it's a 3 MB download). The British official history also devotes two volumes to the RN's post-Jutland activities, which include the operations of the Grand Fleet - large libraries in Commonwealth contries should have a set of these volumes, and if not they can be purchased online here and here for the the fairly modest price of £18. While these books still don't devote a great deal of space to naval operations in the North Sea (particularly in 1917), they should allow some expansion and provide useful context. I think that Germany also produced an official history of the war, and this could be a useful source for information. I'm sure that there are also other sources which can be drawn on (surely someone has written a history of the tensions in the German fleet which led to mutiny in November 1918, for instance). Nick-D ( talk) 06:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
On the German experience there is Daniel Horn's The German Naval Mutinies of World War I, and his edited edition of War, Mutiny, and Revolution in the German Navy; the World War I Diary of Seaman Richard Stumpf is a useful companion. For a more general look at the Imperial German Navy's end is David Woodward's The Collapse of Power: Mutiny in the High Seas Fleet. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Another general reference which may be useful is Prados, John (2009). "Twilight of the High Seas Fleet". Naval History. 23 (2). Annapolis: United States Naval Institute. - this is available on ProQuest Nick-D ( talk) 08:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a lazy slacker right now, but I'd like to know if it would be possible for me to start working on phase 2,3 and 4 layouts in my userspace, so as to be able to port them to the project page instantly if we manage to get articles like USS_Constellation_(CC-2) to FA. Any thoughts? Buggie111 ( talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I know. You didn't have to say so after your commenting at the Battlecruisers of Germany FT dsicussion. I got the point there. Buggie111 ( talk) 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The wonderful Hyperwar site has recently digitalised the US Navy publication 'Bureau of Ordnance: Guns and Mounts' which is available online here. Does OMT have a 'resources' section or similar where this kind of reference can be listed? Nick-D ( talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. To complete Lexington-class battlecruiser and USS Hawaii (CB-3), I'm going to need Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History OCLC 10949320. The problem is that the closest library that holds it is not in Michigan (ie outside of inter-library loan), and the cheapest copy I've ever seen is upwards of $160, way too high for me. Would anyone have access to it and be willing to collaborate on at least one of the articles? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The individual articles of the South Dakota class battleship (1920) need to be redirected to the class article. But this isn't a pure blank and redirect since the content of the individual articles needs to be incorporated into the class article first. - MBK 004 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on List of battleships of Germany, and I've been thinking about the planned H-class designs from WWII. I'm a little unhappy with how our articles are set up right now, with just H class battleship (1939) and H class battleship (1944). Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 notes there were designs from 1941, 42, and 43; the 1944 article discusses these, as well as the 1939 as the starting point. I think it would make a lot more sense to have just one comprehensive article like H class battleship proposals, similar to the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article. Any thoughts on this? Parsecboy ( talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I made a stub on battleships of Greece. It's now a redirect to Decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. What happened? Rin tin tin 1996 ( talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I had changed the ships that were noted as redirects in these two sections to "Redirect class", then it occured to me that in so doing I couldn't be sure if the "Start class" article count would be correct. Should these entries in the table be listed as "Redirect class" or "Start class"? - The Bushranger ( talk) 07:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Join it, if you're interested: http://www.facebook.com/navalhistory?ref=nf They post some interesting stuff. Most or all of it is already available at history.navy.mil, but this draws your attention to photos you may have missed. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to bring this up earlier, but we should establish a consensus for a position on the inclusion or exclusion of the Orlan-class large missile cruisers (NATO reporting name Kirov-class battlecruisers). While I admit that the idea of the scope is to cover gunships, from both a PR standpoint and an American/NATO mentality standpoint, these missile ships are battlecruisers for all intents and purposes. Sooner or later, someone's going to bring that up; and I prefer we gain some consensus for their inclusion/exclusion before we get asked about it. To this end, I've opened up a straw poll. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
While pondering the tables on the project page, I noticed that the earlier Dutch "coast defense ships" aren't included. Now, including CDSes would open up massive cans o' worms, however De Zeven Provinciën, at least, is counted as a Battleship in Jane's Fighting Ships of World War One - along with its two predecessors - and they, along with the Swedish Svierge class, are as much battleships as the Greek Hydra class, which is included. Thoughts? - The Bushranger ( talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if lists were supposed to be included in the "Total" number, so I counted them. But I went through all the entries in the tables on the page and counted them up, since I'd noticed occasionally some of the entries in the -class sections of the "Where we Stand" table were changed without "Total" being changed. Now though those numbers match the lists. Whew!
...And also, there's now one hundred! One hundred articles and lists of GA status or higher! Ha ha ha ha!- The Bushranger ( talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Might this list i recently created be pertinent to the project? XavierGreen ( talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The offer is to "get Kriegsmarine to GA, then FA status". WP:SHIPS barnstar up for grabs here :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've taken it up, FAYGI. (for all you guy's information) Buggie111 ( talk) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Buggie111's work on the Regina Elena-class BBs has caused me notice that the stats for these ships in Jane's differ significantly from those in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. I've never seen this, but I have seen the equivalent airplane book which is nothing more that reprinted extracts of contemporary volumes with huge reliability issues. Does anyone else have this or has seen it. Can anyone compare it to a source of known reliability like Burt, Friedman or Raven & Roberts? If there is a problem, then I guess we'll have to post a notice of its unreliability so as not to confuse editors.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I just checked out the stats for Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes' run in the selected anniversaries section on the 17th; she received almost 28k hits over the 17th and 18th. :) — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As I was wandering around project page today, I saw a comment next to USS Washington by a user named Chris141496. His edits migth be in good faith, but I personally think that we should redirect all articles about non-complete battleships. If Tosa, which is currently in ed's sandbox, coes out shining, then we might do somthing differently. Also, someone sould give a friendly pointer on Chris141496 's talkpage about not having enough notabulity or refs to create and article like USS South Dakota (BB-49), for which he currently has a user subpage dedicated. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't have e-mail enabled, I'm just asking for someone with that book to round out User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). I don't know how useful it would be, but I think it should give somthing. Thanks! Buggie111 ( talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Scribd.com is an interesting site. Search for "battleship," and you'll get many amateur powerpoints, Google Books-like limits for some books (the ones uploaded by publishing companies) ... and some copyvio'd books from normal users. Anyway, enjoy; be sure to save them in case they are deleted.
Tangent point: Parsec, take a look at this :D — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Would K-1000 battleship qualify? I know it's about a hoax, but it's still about a battleship. Thoughts?
I was wondering what will be the elad article for the final topic? Capital ship? Battleship? List of battleships? List of battlecruisers, Dreadnought, Battlecruiser? Some of these are at FA but others may need work. I'm confused. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the note on List of battleships of the United States Navy that says "even battleships BB 72 through BB 78 were projected in 1942. Armament was to consist of 8 × 18 in (4x2), 20 x 5 in (10x2). The project did not proceed past the drawing stage; none were ordered." This should have an article at some point, shouldn't it? - The Bushranger ( talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned this up a little, but I'm not at all sure that this is honestly notable since it appears to have been strictly Fisher's paper project. Roberts, Campbell and Burt don't even mention this so I'm fairly certain that the DNC never even put pen to paper to actually design it. To my mind that speculative nature puts it beyond the pale of our project as even the Dutch, German and Japanese projects that we do include actually had a naval architect invest design time (with the possible exception of the late-war German projects). What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
USS Recruit is something that should probably be added to Phase V (and is, right now as I type, up for DYK!). - The Bushranger ( talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm very much minded to delete this stub as it incorrectly groups together French battleship Bouvet, French battleship Jauréguiberry and French battleship Masséna. All of which differed significantly from each other in terms of armor and superstructure arrangements. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)