![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This page 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. |
There's a discussion on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 nomination about whether Navweaps.com is "highly reliable". I've made my comments, but have received only a deafening silence in return. If you wish to use this resource at FAC then more comments are needed. Please read the article and give your comments as well; it lacks readers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I am amassing Spanish sources to begin re-writing España class battleship, and perhaps the articles of the three ships of its class. Is anybody aware of any good English sources? Thanks. JonCatalán (Talk) 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I contacted the publishers of Warship International to see if I could buy whatever issue that article came out in (there website doesn't list back issues later than 2006). Garzke's & Dulin's book is a little pricier than I'd like to pay for (cheapest I found was ~$50), since I'm not that into battleships (although, a book I bought on the España class came out to about $40, largely due to shipping), but it does have a pretty meaty section on Spanish battleships (and, I mean, there was only one class in service during the Second World War). I won't start editing the article for some time (I want to finish two economics-related articles, first); if you have a scanner, perhaps you could scan in the relevant pages (~10) over the course of the next following weeks? If not, perhaps you could photocopy the pages and send it to me by mail; I would be more than glad to pay for the postage and the envelope. Whatever works. Thanks guys. JonCatalán (Talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Piotr, thanks for pointing me to the Polish book. Unfortunately, I can't understand the most important part—the content—, but perhaps someone who does know Polish can add in any missing information or reference the page numbers (multiple book referencing, a la Richard Cantillon). Parsecboy, I think every little bit can help to piece together the history. Simon, I contacted the publisher (hopefully they will respond). Where did you find it online, by the way? JonCatalán (Talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about what universities carry what. I am, unfortunately, not attending a university this semester (California education budget cuts). I looked at UCSD's online library catalog, but found nothing. Amazon.co.uk has a copy that I am willing to buy (~$30), even if the shipping was high, but it doesn't ship to the United States. The cheapest copy I can find in the US is ~$80, and I am definitely not willing to pay that all on my own (just for Wikipedia—most other publications I buy I use as references elsewhere); I already put $40 down to buy a Spanish-language source (which may be very good, but it'd be nice to have another major reference). JonCatalán (Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just finished reading a printed copy of the purchased article (unfortunately, you lose access to it once you print it! I might have to scan in the printed copy for personal use), and it's great. Also, I just bought a copy of Fitzsimond's (ed.) Illustrated History of Weapons and Warfare vol. 8, which one of the articles suggests has information on the España. Anybody know of anything else? Thanks. JonCatalán (Talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention how cool OMT is. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review: more than a fair share of it is devoted to ships in our scope, with the names of our members appearing everywhere. If anyone ever doubts that you guys do an amazing job in article improvement, they need to get smacked in the head. Someday, this project will go down in Wikipedia history as one of the most successful collaborations. bahamut0013 words deeds 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the Kirov class battlecruiser isnt on the list of Soviet battlecruisers, is this an omission or are they considered to be heavy cruisers of some type? Bonewah ( talk) 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Your opinions are requested over at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates#Good topic nominations on the proper layout of the topic box for Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier. I'd really prefer not to have this drag out so please take a look and offer an opinion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I was bored. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. In 2007, an IP added text to Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre, saying "The Chilean Government has granted Japanese request to use parts from this ship to restore the Battleship Mikasa, which was in severe state of desrepair since the end of World War II, so many parts from the Almirante Latorre can now be seen aboard the Battleship Mikasa." (they added similar text to Mikasa too.) I can't find any cite for this in any of my sources – would anyone happen to be able to confirm? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Yamato1945.png has been nominated for feature picture status, and this nomination is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IJN Yamato scheme. I think that it would be helpful if members of this task force could comment on whether the depiction is accurate. It looks fine to me, but others might spot problems. Nick-D ( talk) 11:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there some kind of script that updates the progress of this project? I ask because a number of the ships listed in Phase 1 are actually higher rated then the list shows. Id be happy to update the list, but if there is automatic way of doing it, that would be much more time efficient then having me go through them all. Bonewah ( talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've moved this special project out from under the maritime warfare task force to sit under the main military history project proper, per WT:MILHIST#Proposal for restructuring task forces. This has resulted in a large number of redirects from all the subpage moves; I've fixed the most obviously broken ones, and will clean up the ones affecting the assessment categories shortly, but please keep an eye out for the remaining redirects and fix links to point to the new page locations when the opportunity arises. Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Iowa class battleship is now open, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! WikiCopter ( radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Bringing this here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup: "A Japanese Wikipedian insists that the article HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007 section History, 1st paragraph is almost duplicate from M.J.Whitley, Cruisers of World War Two An International Encyclopedia, ISBN 1-55750-141-6, p.114." Could somebody please check this for me? Yoenit ( talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
We'll I've begun the task of creating a unified FT. So far, I've gotten all of Germany's battleships as well as Austria-Hungary's and some of the American BBs. Can someone help me out here in finishing this? We should update this as we update the tables as well :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the main problem would be to pick the topic image. Maybe Invincible since she was the first? Parsecboy ( talk) 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of the phases section on the main page and in the tabs? We're barely past being 20% complete, and the sheer scope just adds clutter and deters potential new members. (disclaimer: I think the project should only cover the BB/BC's themselves, but that's barking up a whole new tree) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article happen to have shaken something loose from my memory that I wanted to share with everyone here: don't forget to keep track of your eligibility to receive the triple crown. This operation moves as a pretty stead clip most of the time, so it shouldn't be too hard to earn a triple crown, or upgrade your triple crown as the case may be. For the hell of it, I would challenge each of us to obtain the Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown by the time all is said and done. With all the workload we will have, that should be fairly easy to do, don't you agree? :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a quick note here and inform everyone that I decided to kill two birds with one stone such as it was: since the armament of the Iowa class battleships article was originally a part of the first rewrite of the Iowa class battleship article I have decided to readd the bulk of the article's content into the rewrite I'm working on so that I can address the problems with both at the same time. I hope that is ok with everyone, but if anyone objects to this method speak now and I will coordinate with the objector(s) to make sure that the efforts to improve the article don't end up wasting one or both party's time and energy. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be some confusion about what I am doing here, so allow me to elaborate a little in hopes that it will help clear up the confusion: This is version 1.0, the earliest featured variant of the Iowa class battleship article as it had been updated prior to the first major rewrite, and this is version 2.0, the first major rewrite I did to haul the article out of the danger zone and get it updated to what was at the time the current FA-standard. Note the large armament section, which is much more detailed with regards to the guns and missile systems in use on the class. At the time article's size was such that I was asked to see about reducing it; the solution I came up with was to outsource the weaponry info and create a whole new article article: Armament of the Iowa class battleship. Now that the current Iowa class article is being rewritten from what is essentially scratch, I am taking the opportunity to fix the major issues with the current version of the armament article (which has since been substantially reworked by FTC Gerry ( talk · contribs)) by moving a recent copy of the armament article into my sandbox to stand in for the weaponry section. This is going to make the article large, in all probability too large for most people to comfortably accept, so when the rewrite is finished the rebuilt armament section will be condensed as it was back in 2007 and the bulk of the material - now up to date with current FA standards - will be moved back to the armament article. That is the plan in a nut shell, and the beauty of the this approach is that we can preemptively strike at the people who will complain that armament article is in need of an FAR (which it is, btw) and at the same time bring the class article and the armament article back into sync with one another so that the class article's information is a shortened version of the armament article that shares information rather than having the two seem off due to differences in care taking. If Gerry's information is good enough we may even be able to eek out a third article here - the long sought after "radar and electronic warfare systems of the Iowa class battleship" article that I have been hoping to write for years now but haven't been able to due to a frustrating lack of sources. Questions anyone, or did the above explanation clear up the confusion? TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, this just occurred to me, and I think it's a worthwhile goal. Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor - I think we should get USS Arizona (BB-39) to FA for the anniversary. Any thoughts? (Next year will also see the 95th anniversary of Jutland, but I think I have an article or two for that ;) Parsecboy ( talk) 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope. there's been discussion, but nothign ahs come of it. Buggie111 ( talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
[2] Try this site for the most detailed warship plans I think I have ever seen (they even have drawings for the catapults, etc). I believe they are all works of the French government, but I do not know whether that would make them PD. (for a good example, try the top left picture of Richelieu here) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just spotted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject_desk#Schedule, which says we are up to be interviewed for the 20 December Signpost (I requested they interview us back in August). Whoo, more publicity! ;) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on Operation Majestic Titan for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Our Signpost interview is up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/WikiProject report. I'm really happy that we came across as a fun-loving bunch. I think MILHIST tends to suffer from the stereotype as a bunch of stuffy academics or crazy gun-lovers, and this semi-frathouse feel should dispel that pertty fast! Oh, and Ed, I had no idea you were so young. I had you pegged as at least a grad student. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. planes r still cool. Someday, the big guns will be mounted on the bird farms.
Along the same lines, I found
List of battleships of Denmark,
List of Danish steam battleships, and
List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy hiding out in
Category:Lists of battleships. I think the ships listed are actually ships-of-the-line, and not battleships as we define them.
List of naval ships of the Netherlands seems to cover only battleships and some iconclads. I note that
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Phase I doesn't even have these nations listed.
Similarly, I found
List of battleships by country, which covers SOTLs and monitors as well... and it really seems to smack of OR or SYNTH or both; the one ref only talks about 20th century battleships, which encompasses prettymuch the entirely of our scope.
bahamut0013
words
deeds 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the redirect to SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia ( Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia) was in Category:Battleships. This gives me two questions: is she actually a battleship (or battlecruiser) instead of an armored cruiser, and is there any merit for categorizing the redirect? I don't think so on either question. Another odd thing I noticed about it: it's referencing the German Wikipedia article... I thought that referencing any article on Wikipedia was bad practice because of the COI and self-reference. bahamut0013 words deeds 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that French submarine Surcouf (N N 3) might be a candidate for Phase V, as she was a combination of a sub and a battlecruiser. Any objections? 8 inch guns might be a bit of a stretch, but I think that if the concept would have been allowed to evolve, we'd have seen something firmly in our scope. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Happy (impending) New Year, and I hope that the coming year will be as successful for us as the one now coming to a close. I wanted to raise a few points among us before the end of the year just to see if anyone has interest in discussing and/or elaborating on the ideas presented.
If anyone else would like to add anything to the above points for discussion please do so, I'd be happy to hear back from anyone on points that they feel warrant discussion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor has made extensive changes and additions to the "Armament" section of this featured article. They appear to be referenced, so I'm holding off on the Revert-AGF button, but those with more expertise should probably take a good hard look at it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the manning of ships in general has begun over at the main military history talk page. The outcome of the discussion could potentially have some major impact for us, so I thought I would leave this message here just to let everyone know so they can sound off in the discussion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor that hasn't joined OMT added a couple of Chinese turret ships to the Phase I page. I'm not 100% sure if Chinese turret ship Dingyuan and Chinese turret ship Zhenyuan meet our classification as battleships, and thus, our scope. bahamut0013 words deeds 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we'd all agree that we need to define a battleship based on its own merits, and not what its navy may have labelled it. I think we might have to consider doing the same when the references conflict, but I haven't seen much evidence of this hapenning. But the line between ironclad and battleship is fairly subjective, because it was a gradual shift. I know we might trend towards OR or SYNTH to make our own metric, but I think we might have to to be consistant. bahamut0013 words deeds 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm planning to expand the Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II to hopefully get it up to GA or A class standard. As part of this I'd like to include a background section which discusses (briefly) the USN's previous use of its BBs for shore bombardment during the war. However, I don't have a source that provides a succinct summary of this to draw from - can anyone recommend one? Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Still a bit burnt out after the Cup, I've been writing a number of gun stubs for Phase II. The German ones are mostly done and I've done about half of the Japanese ones. Feel free to start linking to them as you update or write your ship articles. I've also broken them out by nationality so people can add existing articles to the Phase II page. Just remember to add |Majestic-Titan=2 to each article's talk page so we can include them in our stats.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
...I was rather surprised to find a stub-ish article was created in late December for Norman Friedman. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated HMS Indefatigable (1909) as the Featured Article for 24 February. There is another candidate for that date so please drop by Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to express your opinion as to which article is best suited for the main page on that day.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw a prod for Project 1157 cruiser pop up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military as a possible hoax, and figured that you guys would know better than me if this is plausible or not. It's not referenced, and there seems to be confusion with intelligence ships. bahamut0013 words deeds 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey all! As part of our effort to clean up the old working groups, we've been considering the best disposition for the Battle of Jutland group. Our original plan was to move it into the new project incubator, but a suggestion was made that OMT might be interested in absorbing this group instead.
I'd appreciate any comments on whether OMT would be interested in absorbing the group, and whether such an absorption would be feasible in practice, or whether participants here would prefer that the group be transitioned into the incubator instead. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. In writing a paper on the evolution of naval warfare from 1870-1945, I've repeatedly come across the assertion that the British Royal Sovereign class battleships set the standard for battleship construction up til HMS Dreadnought. For example, Lawrence Sondhaus states that they "set the standard for battleship construction for the next seventeen years, until their general concept was rendered obsolete by the all big gun Dreadnought." (page 162, Naval Warfare 1815–1914). Theodore Roop and Stephen Roberts say "The Naval Defence Act [of 1889] was a watershed in naval technology as well as policy, for it marked the end of sample ships...Britain set a new standard of battleship design that endured until the development of the Dreadnought in 1904." (pages 206, 207, The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871–1904). The last time we discussed this, I pointed out that Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 states that the Royal Sovereigns were "the first class of what were to become known as pre-dreadnoughts." (page 32). One thing that is emphasized is the discarding of the emphasis on end-on fire that characterized many of the battleships built before the Royal Sovereigns and a return to broadside fighting - this is very similar to the shift from short-range to long-range engagements that occurred in the switch from pre-dreadnoughts to dreadnoughts.
Given the numerous discussions about whether a particular ship falls within our scope, and the hazy definition we currently have, I think it would be a good idea to simply use the Royal Sovereigns as a clear cut-off point. Any capital ship that predates them would be outside of our scope, as they are not included in what many naval historians call pre-dreadnoughts. This actually wouldn't trim much from the current list: a quick scan reveals we'd only lose the first three British classes, the first two Russian classes plus Dvenadsat Apostolov, the first two Italian classes, and the Spanish Pelayo. The obvious benefit is the clear cut-off. When we go to FTC, we lessen our vulnerability to claims that we cherry-picked articles. We also don't have to have the same discussions every few months someone finds an article they think should be included in our scope. Any thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that when the final nomination is made we will make a point to note that the ships not covered here will be covered in other, as-yet-to-be-started special projects that will pick up where this one leaves off. Our opponent's claims for cherry picking on such grounds should thus be kept at least partially at bay with this. I've already considered both aircraft carriers and the helo carry ships for a special project, as well as the heavy and light cruisers not covered by this special project. The only reason plans for these special projects have not been raised or discussed yet is due to my perception that a the moment this project should not be in open competition with other special projects of similar design and scope since its my belief that instituting other such special projects at the moment would divide our personnel and resources beyond a point where we could reasonably expect participation and project growth. As to the Royal Sovereigns: I'm a whisker suspicious of such claims by the Royal Navy since at this time they were the world's naval standard, but the sources agree then I think it may be reasonable to consider this a starting point as long as we agree that there will probably be one or two ships close enough in design concept and time of construction that the class(es) in question can be included in a good faith effort to get where we are going. In either case, whether they are covered here or not, its my announced intention to get to them sooner or later. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know what happened to MBK? He hasn't edited in a little over three months (nor on his alternate account), and I'm a tad concerned. Our OMT Bot didn't leave a notice of retirement or wikibreak that I've seen. bahamut0013 words deeds 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed that there are some freely-licensed photos of British battleships which haven't (yet) been moved over to Commons & included in articles..... just a thought :-D The Land ( talk) 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If you hadn't noticed the MILHIST March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I recommend you take a closer look. We have just over 300 stub- and start-class articles in Phase I (and even more for the entire project). I know that the glory is in the GA, A, and FA improvement processes, and we've done very well there thus far, but I tend to see far less updates on my watchlist to the metric in regards to moving up to B-class. The only article needing expert attention in our scope is Naval artillery, and that's a core article for Phase II. bahamut0013 words deeds 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just finished the rewrite of German battleship Tirpitz, and had a question I wanted to run by you guys. In trying to balance two many levels of subheaders with the infamous "wall-o-text", I formatted the section on British attacks on the ship with semi-colon headers. It was an experiment I've never used before. My question is, is this a workable solution? Parsecboy ( talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This page 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. |
There's a discussion on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 nomination about whether Navweaps.com is "highly reliable". I've made my comments, but have received only a deafening silence in return. If you wish to use this resource at FAC then more comments are needed. Please read the article and give your comments as well; it lacks readers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I am amassing Spanish sources to begin re-writing España class battleship, and perhaps the articles of the three ships of its class. Is anybody aware of any good English sources? Thanks. JonCatalán (Talk) 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I contacted the publishers of Warship International to see if I could buy whatever issue that article came out in (there website doesn't list back issues later than 2006). Garzke's & Dulin's book is a little pricier than I'd like to pay for (cheapest I found was ~$50), since I'm not that into battleships (although, a book I bought on the España class came out to about $40, largely due to shipping), but it does have a pretty meaty section on Spanish battleships (and, I mean, there was only one class in service during the Second World War). I won't start editing the article for some time (I want to finish two economics-related articles, first); if you have a scanner, perhaps you could scan in the relevant pages (~10) over the course of the next following weeks? If not, perhaps you could photocopy the pages and send it to me by mail; I would be more than glad to pay for the postage and the envelope. Whatever works. Thanks guys. JonCatalán (Talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Piotr, thanks for pointing me to the Polish book. Unfortunately, I can't understand the most important part—the content—, but perhaps someone who does know Polish can add in any missing information or reference the page numbers (multiple book referencing, a la Richard Cantillon). Parsecboy, I think every little bit can help to piece together the history. Simon, I contacted the publisher (hopefully they will respond). Where did you find it online, by the way? JonCatalán (Talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about what universities carry what. I am, unfortunately, not attending a university this semester (California education budget cuts). I looked at UCSD's online library catalog, but found nothing. Amazon.co.uk has a copy that I am willing to buy (~$30), even if the shipping was high, but it doesn't ship to the United States. The cheapest copy I can find in the US is ~$80, and I am definitely not willing to pay that all on my own (just for Wikipedia—most other publications I buy I use as references elsewhere); I already put $40 down to buy a Spanish-language source (which may be very good, but it'd be nice to have another major reference). JonCatalán (Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just finished reading a printed copy of the purchased article (unfortunately, you lose access to it once you print it! I might have to scan in the printed copy for personal use), and it's great. Also, I just bought a copy of Fitzsimond's (ed.) Illustrated History of Weapons and Warfare vol. 8, which one of the articles suggests has information on the España. Anybody know of anything else? Thanks. JonCatalán (Talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention how cool OMT is. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review: more than a fair share of it is devoted to ships in our scope, with the names of our members appearing everywhere. If anyone ever doubts that you guys do an amazing job in article improvement, they need to get smacked in the head. Someday, this project will go down in Wikipedia history as one of the most successful collaborations. bahamut0013 words deeds 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the Kirov class battlecruiser isnt on the list of Soviet battlecruisers, is this an omission or are they considered to be heavy cruisers of some type? Bonewah ( talk) 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Your opinions are requested over at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates#Good topic nominations on the proper layout of the topic box for Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier. I'd really prefer not to have this drag out so please take a look and offer an opinion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I was bored. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. In 2007, an IP added text to Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre, saying "The Chilean Government has granted Japanese request to use parts from this ship to restore the Battleship Mikasa, which was in severe state of desrepair since the end of World War II, so many parts from the Almirante Latorre can now be seen aboard the Battleship Mikasa." (they added similar text to Mikasa too.) I can't find any cite for this in any of my sources – would anyone happen to be able to confirm? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Yamato1945.png has been nominated for feature picture status, and this nomination is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IJN Yamato scheme. I think that it would be helpful if members of this task force could comment on whether the depiction is accurate. It looks fine to me, but others might spot problems. Nick-D ( talk) 11:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there some kind of script that updates the progress of this project? I ask because a number of the ships listed in Phase 1 are actually higher rated then the list shows. Id be happy to update the list, but if there is automatic way of doing it, that would be much more time efficient then having me go through them all. Bonewah ( talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've moved this special project out from under the maritime warfare task force to sit under the main military history project proper, per WT:MILHIST#Proposal for restructuring task forces. This has resulted in a large number of redirects from all the subpage moves; I've fixed the most obviously broken ones, and will clean up the ones affecting the assessment categories shortly, but please keep an eye out for the remaining redirects and fix links to point to the new page locations when the opportunity arises. Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Iowa class battleship is now open, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! WikiCopter ( radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Bringing this here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup: "A Japanese Wikipedian insists that the article HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007 section History, 1st paragraph is almost duplicate from M.J.Whitley, Cruisers of World War Two An International Encyclopedia, ISBN 1-55750-141-6, p.114." Could somebody please check this for me? Yoenit ( talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
We'll I've begun the task of creating a unified FT. So far, I've gotten all of Germany's battleships as well as Austria-Hungary's and some of the American BBs. Can someone help me out here in finishing this? We should update this as we update the tables as well :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the main problem would be to pick the topic image. Maybe Invincible since she was the first? Parsecboy ( talk) 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of the phases section on the main page and in the tabs? We're barely past being 20% complete, and the sheer scope just adds clutter and deters potential new members. (disclaimer: I think the project should only cover the BB/BC's themselves, but that's barking up a whole new tree) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article happen to have shaken something loose from my memory that I wanted to share with everyone here: don't forget to keep track of your eligibility to receive the triple crown. This operation moves as a pretty stead clip most of the time, so it shouldn't be too hard to earn a triple crown, or upgrade your triple crown as the case may be. For the hell of it, I would challenge each of us to obtain the Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown by the time all is said and done. With all the workload we will have, that should be fairly easy to do, don't you agree? :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a quick note here and inform everyone that I decided to kill two birds with one stone such as it was: since the armament of the Iowa class battleships article was originally a part of the first rewrite of the Iowa class battleship article I have decided to readd the bulk of the article's content into the rewrite I'm working on so that I can address the problems with both at the same time. I hope that is ok with everyone, but if anyone objects to this method speak now and I will coordinate with the objector(s) to make sure that the efforts to improve the article don't end up wasting one or both party's time and energy. TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be some confusion about what I am doing here, so allow me to elaborate a little in hopes that it will help clear up the confusion: This is version 1.0, the earliest featured variant of the Iowa class battleship article as it had been updated prior to the first major rewrite, and this is version 2.0, the first major rewrite I did to haul the article out of the danger zone and get it updated to what was at the time the current FA-standard. Note the large armament section, which is much more detailed with regards to the guns and missile systems in use on the class. At the time article's size was such that I was asked to see about reducing it; the solution I came up with was to outsource the weaponry info and create a whole new article article: Armament of the Iowa class battleship. Now that the current Iowa class article is being rewritten from what is essentially scratch, I am taking the opportunity to fix the major issues with the current version of the armament article (which has since been substantially reworked by FTC Gerry ( talk · contribs)) by moving a recent copy of the armament article into my sandbox to stand in for the weaponry section. This is going to make the article large, in all probability too large for most people to comfortably accept, so when the rewrite is finished the rebuilt armament section will be condensed as it was back in 2007 and the bulk of the material - now up to date with current FA standards - will be moved back to the armament article. That is the plan in a nut shell, and the beauty of the this approach is that we can preemptively strike at the people who will complain that armament article is in need of an FAR (which it is, btw) and at the same time bring the class article and the armament article back into sync with one another so that the class article's information is a shortened version of the armament article that shares information rather than having the two seem off due to differences in care taking. If Gerry's information is good enough we may even be able to eek out a third article here - the long sought after "radar and electronic warfare systems of the Iowa class battleship" article that I have been hoping to write for years now but haven't been able to due to a frustrating lack of sources. Questions anyone, or did the above explanation clear up the confusion? TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, this just occurred to me, and I think it's a worthwhile goal. Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor - I think we should get USS Arizona (BB-39) to FA for the anniversary. Any thoughts? (Next year will also see the 95th anniversary of Jutland, but I think I have an article or two for that ;) Parsecboy ( talk) 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope. there's been discussion, but nothign ahs come of it. Buggie111 ( talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
[2] Try this site for the most detailed warship plans I think I have ever seen (they even have drawings for the catapults, etc). I believe they are all works of the French government, but I do not know whether that would make them PD. (for a good example, try the top left picture of Richelieu here) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just spotted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject_desk#Schedule, which says we are up to be interviewed for the 20 December Signpost (I requested they interview us back in August). Whoo, more publicity! ;) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on Operation Majestic Titan for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Our Signpost interview is up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/WikiProject report. I'm really happy that we came across as a fun-loving bunch. I think MILHIST tends to suffer from the stereotype as a bunch of stuffy academics or crazy gun-lovers, and this semi-frathouse feel should dispel that pertty fast! Oh, and Ed, I had no idea you were so young. I had you pegged as at least a grad student. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. planes r still cool. Someday, the big guns will be mounted on the bird farms.
Along the same lines, I found
List of battleships of Denmark,
List of Danish steam battleships, and
List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy hiding out in
Category:Lists of battleships. I think the ships listed are actually ships-of-the-line, and not battleships as we define them.
List of naval ships of the Netherlands seems to cover only battleships and some iconclads. I note that
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Phase I doesn't even have these nations listed.
Similarly, I found
List of battleships by country, which covers SOTLs and monitors as well... and it really seems to smack of OR or SYNTH or both; the one ref only talks about 20th century battleships, which encompasses prettymuch the entirely of our scope.
bahamut0013
words
deeds 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the redirect to SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia ( Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia) was in Category:Battleships. This gives me two questions: is she actually a battleship (or battlecruiser) instead of an armored cruiser, and is there any merit for categorizing the redirect? I don't think so on either question. Another odd thing I noticed about it: it's referencing the German Wikipedia article... I thought that referencing any article on Wikipedia was bad practice because of the COI and self-reference. bahamut0013 words deeds 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that French submarine Surcouf (N N 3) might be a candidate for Phase V, as she was a combination of a sub and a battlecruiser. Any objections? 8 inch guns might be a bit of a stretch, but I think that if the concept would have been allowed to evolve, we'd have seen something firmly in our scope. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Happy (impending) New Year, and I hope that the coming year will be as successful for us as the one now coming to a close. I wanted to raise a few points among us before the end of the year just to see if anyone has interest in discussing and/or elaborating on the ideas presented.
If anyone else would like to add anything to the above points for discussion please do so, I'd be happy to hear back from anyone on points that they feel warrant discussion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor has made extensive changes and additions to the "Armament" section of this featured article. They appear to be referenced, so I'm holding off on the Revert-AGF button, but those with more expertise should probably take a good hard look at it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the manning of ships in general has begun over at the main military history talk page. The outcome of the discussion could potentially have some major impact for us, so I thought I would leave this message here just to let everyone know so they can sound off in the discussion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor that hasn't joined OMT added a couple of Chinese turret ships to the Phase I page. I'm not 100% sure if Chinese turret ship Dingyuan and Chinese turret ship Zhenyuan meet our classification as battleships, and thus, our scope. bahamut0013 words deeds 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we'd all agree that we need to define a battleship based on its own merits, and not what its navy may have labelled it. I think we might have to consider doing the same when the references conflict, but I haven't seen much evidence of this hapenning. But the line between ironclad and battleship is fairly subjective, because it was a gradual shift. I know we might trend towards OR or SYNTH to make our own metric, but I think we might have to to be consistant. bahamut0013 words deeds 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm planning to expand the Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II to hopefully get it up to GA or A class standard. As part of this I'd like to include a background section which discusses (briefly) the USN's previous use of its BBs for shore bombardment during the war. However, I don't have a source that provides a succinct summary of this to draw from - can anyone recommend one? Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Still a bit burnt out after the Cup, I've been writing a number of gun stubs for Phase II. The German ones are mostly done and I've done about half of the Japanese ones. Feel free to start linking to them as you update or write your ship articles. I've also broken them out by nationality so people can add existing articles to the Phase II page. Just remember to add |Majestic-Titan=2 to each article's talk page so we can include them in our stats.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
...I was rather surprised to find a stub-ish article was created in late December for Norman Friedman. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated HMS Indefatigable (1909) as the Featured Article for 24 February. There is another candidate for that date so please drop by Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to express your opinion as to which article is best suited for the main page on that day.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw a prod for Project 1157 cruiser pop up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military as a possible hoax, and figured that you guys would know better than me if this is plausible or not. It's not referenced, and there seems to be confusion with intelligence ships. bahamut0013 words deeds 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey all! As part of our effort to clean up the old working groups, we've been considering the best disposition for the Battle of Jutland group. Our original plan was to move it into the new project incubator, but a suggestion was made that OMT might be interested in absorbing this group instead.
I'd appreciate any comments on whether OMT would be interested in absorbing the group, and whether such an absorption would be feasible in practice, or whether participants here would prefer that the group be transitioned into the incubator instead. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. In writing a paper on the evolution of naval warfare from 1870-1945, I've repeatedly come across the assertion that the British Royal Sovereign class battleships set the standard for battleship construction up til HMS Dreadnought. For example, Lawrence Sondhaus states that they "set the standard for battleship construction for the next seventeen years, until their general concept was rendered obsolete by the all big gun Dreadnought." (page 162, Naval Warfare 1815–1914). Theodore Roop and Stephen Roberts say "The Naval Defence Act [of 1889] was a watershed in naval technology as well as policy, for it marked the end of sample ships...Britain set a new standard of battleship design that endured until the development of the Dreadnought in 1904." (pages 206, 207, The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871–1904). The last time we discussed this, I pointed out that Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 states that the Royal Sovereigns were "the first class of what were to become known as pre-dreadnoughts." (page 32). One thing that is emphasized is the discarding of the emphasis on end-on fire that characterized many of the battleships built before the Royal Sovereigns and a return to broadside fighting - this is very similar to the shift from short-range to long-range engagements that occurred in the switch from pre-dreadnoughts to dreadnoughts.
Given the numerous discussions about whether a particular ship falls within our scope, and the hazy definition we currently have, I think it would be a good idea to simply use the Royal Sovereigns as a clear cut-off point. Any capital ship that predates them would be outside of our scope, as they are not included in what many naval historians call pre-dreadnoughts. This actually wouldn't trim much from the current list: a quick scan reveals we'd only lose the first three British classes, the first two Russian classes plus Dvenadsat Apostolov, the first two Italian classes, and the Spanish Pelayo. The obvious benefit is the clear cut-off. When we go to FTC, we lessen our vulnerability to claims that we cherry-picked articles. We also don't have to have the same discussions every few months someone finds an article they think should be included in our scope. Any thoughts? Parsecboy ( talk) 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that when the final nomination is made we will make a point to note that the ships not covered here will be covered in other, as-yet-to-be-started special projects that will pick up where this one leaves off. Our opponent's claims for cherry picking on such grounds should thus be kept at least partially at bay with this. I've already considered both aircraft carriers and the helo carry ships for a special project, as well as the heavy and light cruisers not covered by this special project. The only reason plans for these special projects have not been raised or discussed yet is due to my perception that a the moment this project should not be in open competition with other special projects of similar design and scope since its my belief that instituting other such special projects at the moment would divide our personnel and resources beyond a point where we could reasonably expect participation and project growth. As to the Royal Sovereigns: I'm a whisker suspicious of such claims by the Royal Navy since at this time they were the world's naval standard, but the sources agree then I think it may be reasonable to consider this a starting point as long as we agree that there will probably be one or two ships close enough in design concept and time of construction that the class(es) in question can be included in a good faith effort to get where we are going. In either case, whether they are covered here or not, its my announced intention to get to them sooner or later. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know what happened to MBK? He hasn't edited in a little over three months (nor on his alternate account), and I'm a tad concerned. Our OMT Bot didn't leave a notice of retirement or wikibreak that I've seen. bahamut0013 words deeds 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed that there are some freely-licensed photos of British battleships which haven't (yet) been moved over to Commons & included in articles..... just a thought :-D The Land ( talk) 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If you hadn't noticed the MILHIST March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I recommend you take a closer look. We have just over 300 stub- and start-class articles in Phase I (and even more for the entire project). I know that the glory is in the GA, A, and FA improvement processes, and we've done very well there thus far, but I tend to see far less updates on my watchlist to the metric in regards to moving up to B-class. The only article needing expert attention in our scope is Naval artillery, and that's a core article for Phase II. bahamut0013 words deeds 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just finished the rewrite of German battleship Tirpitz, and had a question I wanted to run by you guys. In trying to balance two many levels of subheaders with the infamous "wall-o-text", I formatted the section on British attacks on the ship with semi-colon headers. It was an experiment I've never used before. My question is, is this a workable solution? Parsecboy ( talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)