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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Hi all. I know this is a Phase V article, but I need some help with High Seas Fleet. My goal is to push it to FA so it can run on the main page on 31st May (this year is the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Jutland). I've got the article worked out, but there won't be time to run an ACR and still have time for the FAC, so I need some help from you guys to take a look and see what I missed. I should have about 2 weeks before my current FAC closes, so that should give us plenty of time to iron out any problems. Dan has agreed to copyedit the article once it's done, and any other help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. As I have been ducking in and out of articles in our scope, I came across List of battleships by country. Here,, there are links to lists of carracks, galleons, battleship and other ships by country, all under the name "Battleship", i.e. List of Japanese early battleships. The main list was created by User:Spooky Mulder. So, my question is, what should we do withthese pages? Forcefully change thme to reflect OMT? Leave them the way they are? Buggie111 ( talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The ever-excellent Hyperwar website has recently uploaded the USN's World War II-era Italian warship recognition guide. It's available here and has lots of excellent PD drawings and photos. Nick-D ( talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As a note the A class review for Operation Kita, which is within the scope of this project, will probably be closed (as a promotion) tomorrow unless there are any further comments. I'm probably going to take this to a FAC, so would welcome any comments/suggestions before this time. The ACR is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Kita. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the 'main' members of our little project will already know of (or own!) some of these reference works, but I found a nice little list of books if anyone stumbles onto our page and would like to help us out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Im starting to do some work on the American battleship class articles and noticed that the formatting of the infoboxes is irregular between articles. Specifically, the armament and armor sections vary between line breaks and bulleted lists. Consider Pennsylvania class battleship (line breaks), Nevada class battleship (bulleted), New York class battleship (both). What is the preferred style? Bonewah ( talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
About a month ago I posted on Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66) about the condition of the article. It would have been next on my list for FAR but I did Daniel Webster instead. This will allow OMT extra time to work on Kentucky before I take it to FAR. As long as Daniel Webster remains at FAR is the amount of time left before Kentucky goes to FAR. Brad ( talk) 22:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks this question should be right up your shipping lanes. I am reworking Operation Slapstick a British WWII landing at Taranto in Italy. As the British fleet approached the harbour the two Andrea Doria class battleships were seen leaving. Now do I need to prefix the Italian ship names with HMS - USS whatever the Italian equivalent is? Looking through your lists I cannot find anything. Thanks in advance. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Bunch of painting scans have been uploaded. Some of them include british warships such as:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-trafalgar-1898-24670
© Geni 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I have question - I can`t find such topic for Japan BC. There is no such topic? All articles are at least GA. PMG ( talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, thought I should share this with you all: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Germany/archive1. It's been a long time coming. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties with my reviewer in Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)/GA1 as he wants a detailed explanation as to why she became obsolete and was scrapped in 1960. I believe that a simple statement that she was obsolete suffices and he disagrees. Please weigh in with your opinion so we can put this to be one way or another.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When are we activating the rest of the phases? Phase I seems well on its way. W i k i C o p t e r 03:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of you might have spotted that there is a new (and rather useful, in my not-so-unbiased opinion) source of info on British ships over at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM. Most of the British ships are currently Starts, which suggests that the NMM info will probably have something to add (it tends not to for articles which are well on the way to FA status). Is it worth a few of us systematically updating the British battleships with the NMM's data? (This would also be pretty useful in scoping out what we can do with the rest of the NMM information :-) ) The Land ( talk) 08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The A-class Review for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer an opinion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to move the page Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser back to Kirov class battlecruiser. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is slightly off topic (but not by much), but does anyone have access to the 1922-1946 edition of Conway's? I need the dates the three pocket battleships were laid down (because Groner never gives the laid down dates, just launching and commissioning), and their page is annoyingly skipped in the google books scan. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I know this will be sometime away, but I think a plan should be developed for List of battleships. An editor commented on the talk page of List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union, about why so much "history" is in the article, why not just a table, few notes. This got me htinking about the situation with List of battleships. Are we goingto write a paragraph long history for each ship? This, at least in my eyes, seems extremely hard/severe. Buggie111 ( talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad ( talk) 05:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In looking at the criteria for the Titan's Cross, given that we only issue three variants of the award, I wonder if my fellow OMT members would object to adding one additional criteria point to the three we currently have. As it stands now, the criteria are:
What I would like to add is a point between #2 and #3 to make require (within limits of course) candidates for the award to have already received both the WikiChevrons and the WP:SHIPS barnstar, which would result in the following proposed criteria listing:
Thoughts on this? TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Posting a brief note here to alert anyone watching this page of the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Special projects, regarding the special projects in general. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
A member of the project, bahamut0013, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of bahamut0013's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Timestamp added due to lack of one Buggie111 ( talk)
We have a number of articles at ACR that fall under our rubric. Please take some time and consider if they meet our A-class criteria!
HMS Queen Mary
Brazilian battleship São Paulo
Iowa class battleship
SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)
16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Timestamp added due to lack of one
Buggie111 (
talk)
Since Bahamut is no longer with us, we need to think about the portal. I was looking at it today with the thought that we should try to push it to featured status in his honor. I noticed the the content page is badly out of date; I went though and fixed what I could, but others may want to check it as well. I think we should try to get in the habit of updating the page every time an article passes a substantial review. Anyone have any ideas/comments? Parsecboy ( talk) 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I was really bored one day and built a draft for the good topic for British dreadnoughts, even though it's quite a while away.
Two questions though, should this include HMS Eagle (1918), which was a BB ordered by Chile, bought by the UK and completed as a birdfarm. And how does the layout look? I've ordered things chronologically and kept the classes together. If Eagle is added it will lengthen the middle column, though, which might unbalance the look of the topic box. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that HMS Prince of Wales (53) has text copied directly from Garzke & Dulin's British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II - we need to check the other articles Thurgate has written to see if similar problems exist. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interest of possibly motivating some of us, I present a large topic box that already well over half done. The biggest challenge is, I think, to write the list for this topic as it will have to explicate a lot of the design decisions made by each country.
I find these sorts of things a huge help as a motivator as it readily identifies what needs to be done and helps to keep you focused on your goal. Heck, this topic is already more than half-way to Featured Topic status!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I made the post-1930 topic box, but I don't remember why I used 1930. I think it was because the G3/Nelson/Lexington classes were vastly different from the ships designed in the 1930s. We really could split it along multiple ways; it may be good to hash this out now. Do we want one huge topic that will probably be rejected for being too big? Should be use battleship as the main topic, with dreadnought etc. and the country lists below, and the country lists forming subtopics (or dreadnought, pre-dreadnought, etc. forming subtopics?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It's just occurred to me that we're a lot closer to completing the overall battlecruiser topic than any of the other biggies:
This design is a little lopsided since I dislike breaking up classes, but that's not a big deal. Oddly enough, the Americans are in the worst shape, but it wouldn't take much to get them up to snuff. The interesting thing is that we're only five FAs away from qualifying for a FT right off the bat, thanks to Parsecboy's work, and we already have six articles at A-class. I'd suggest that we hold off on submitting this, even if we get everything else up to GA in the meantime, until we get those five articles promoted and can bypass GTC entirely. I'll claim dibs on Lex and Sara as I have a good technical history of both ships. Getting the main battlecruiser article up to GA will be a PITA as people keep on getting stuck on what is a battlecruiser because of careless usage by historians who don't know any better.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Buggie, I'm going to try to work on Guam here over the next few days or so, you're free to help if you want. I would imagine that Battlecruiser would be the capstone article, with List of battlecruisers as the first article listed in the topic. What we are forgetting are the Japanese battlecruisers, which will add nine articles (and require five further FAs), although of those, 3 are FAs and 4 more are As (remind me again why we haven't turned them into a topic yet?). Parsecboy ( talk) 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
'bout Guam, sure. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Buggie111 ( talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for another little dose of motivation, we are more than halfway done with an overall Russian BB topic. Also, when we promote all stub-andB class articles within our scope to GA, we will be halfway done! And I mean halfway done as in half of our articles will be GA's or higher! Buggie111 ( talk) 13:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria raised the issue of the artist who drew the line art for Brasseys during the HMS Eagle (1918) FAC. I know that this was resolved on another OMT FAC within the last year. Does anyone remember which one?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated this at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of Japan/archive1. Feel free to comment on the nomination and to help fix any issues. It would be nice if Cam or Ed has the time to take some of these A-class articles to FAC to speed up the completion of our overall battlecruiser Featured Topic. If RL prevents that, no big deal, we'll get there sooner or later.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been working of the list of dreadnought battleships of Russia enroute to a good topic and Buggie's asked me to consider stopping work on that article and to move all that content over to the list of battleships of Russia that he's been slowly working on in his user space. I'm not opposed to doing so, although we'll have to merge the one into the other. At any rate, the dreadnought topic only needs the list to pass FLC to qualify as a topic, but the predreadnought topic is only about half-way done. Here's their current status:
As much as I hate writing lists for FLC (I have to leave out what?), I kinda like having separate ones for predreadnoughts and dreadnoughts as that would allow us to distinguish between them in the body of the topic box, much like the national lists do for the proposed battlecruiser topic. However, this would raise the question of what we'd use for the topic lead article. I doubt anyone's really in favor of dual headers and a consolidated list of battleships of Russia would serve nicely (and reduce the need to write two lists). However, this isn't that big of a topic (45 articles if we have one consolidated list) and is reasonably manageable. The Royal Navy list of dreadnoughts numbers 55 articles alone and there are at least that many more for the predreadnoughts. Do we want to want to break what we've established as precedent (with Parsec's enormous German BB topic) and split them up? As I've been writing this, I think that I've pretty well convinced myself that we should have a consolidated topic, but I'd welcome your opinions regardless. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. I'm putting the finishing touches on a GT for German heavy cruisers, but I have a couple of questions. For the topic boxes, which would be better:
or
Also, in the main list, the box on the P class cruisers looks a little ridiculous to me as it currently stands. Would it make more sense to only have one row (i.e., "P1–P12" instead of 12 mostly empty rows)? Parsecboy ( talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A request for help: WT:MILHIST#USS Arizona (BB-39). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Saw we have a group page on Facebook. Just out of curiosity, whose posting the updates? Buggie111 ( talk) 00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
While hunting for too-small cats, I came across this disgusting mess. Ugh. Is any of this worth salvaging into the main article or should I just nominate the lot for deletion? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I was doing some work on Washington Naval Treaty, which is a bit of a neglected subject, and I decided to make a graph of battleship displacement vs date laid down to illustrate its effect. Let me know if you can think of ways to improve the result. :-) The Land ( talk) 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, Dominic over at NARA has a day here devoted to battleships. See User_talk:Dominic#National_Archives_ExtravaSCANza. To help him out (and keep stuff like this going in the future), should we/can we organize something between us to put the images in articles and/or improve a couple articles that use media they upload to the Commons? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The Featured Article Candidacy for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer your comments.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Between Christmas, writing about Andre Johnson and Plants versus Zombies, I've forgotten about the Petropavlovsk class, something I wanted to get to and finish before my summer break. My question is this: Should I modify the "History" section at Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) to something akin to the ones at Sevastopol and Poltava, or should I keep it? It looks rather good, cited with several sources and everything, but it would be rather, substandard compared to the other ship pages for that class. Thoughts? Buggie111 ( talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the current status of the global battlecruiser featured topic:
Including the Alaskas, we need six more FA-class articles before we can submit this as FTC; excluding them, we need five more. I believe that we should include the Alaskas for several reasons:
In other news, the FAC for New Zealand needs reviewers and I plan to nominate Akagi with Cla68 once I get home next week. So that will be two more down if they get promoted. I'll start another solo FAC after New Zealand, and I'll work on Lexington and Saratoga beginning next week, but it would be great to get some of the other A-class articles into FAC to speed things up.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Rather different topic: Sturm, do you think Borodino has a chance of passing with more sources, or is she always gonna be at A-Class? Buggie111 ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a question at Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61) regarding discrepancies between how we arrange the awards, ribbons and battlestars for the Iowa and how they are displayed on the ship itself. Once the issue is addressed and we know what the correct arrangement should be, would it be a good idea to assemble a single such image for each battleship? One example is here: File:USS Missouri (BB-63) Awards and Ribbons.PNG – Tomstar put that one together. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, now that Kentucky has been demoted at FAR, we're going to need to beat the article into at least GA quality in time to save the FT. I should have some time to work on it over the next couple of weeks - anybody else available to lend a hand? Parsecboy ( talk) 21:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Good news: I've just discovered we have an article for the song Sink the Bismark, so in addition to games, movies, and TV shows we now have our first official song (insofar as I can tell, anyway). TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I came across this at the Help Desk. I've emailed the Foundation and offered a possible OMT drive to bring the article up to TFA. As it's already at A-Class, it should be easy. Any takers? Buggie111 ( talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, I stumbled across this ship while reading through Ed's South American dreadnought race article, which is at FAC. It's a 7,000-ton ship armed with four 9.4" guns, and is classed as a battleship by Conway's 1860-1905 (which normally classifies ships we don't include as coastal battleships, turret ships, etc.). Is there a reason we haven't included it? Parsecboy ( talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey all - the ACR for this list has been open for about a month now, and one a couple comments have been made. Can a few of you take a look at the list and see if it meets the A-class standards? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a note for public consumption: apparently four items do not a list make, so don't bother wasting your time on lists with fewer than some random, arbitrary number of items that no one will identify. Cheers. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The FAC for HMS Vanguard is now open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Vanguard (23)/archive1. Any comments would be welcome.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey all - I just requested the four volumes from 1984 of Warship International from the library to work on Normandie class battleship. If there's anything else from those volumes anyone needs, I can scan it for you. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been talking to the National Maritime Museum in London (as some of you might know). They are interested to know what use we could make of the material in their archive catalogue. If we could get a bunch of Wikipedians to turn up, request bits of archival material, probably scan/digitise it (copyright allowing, but most of it is quite old), as well as look up the secondary sources in their library and go and look at / take photos of stuff in their collections - what would people be interested in getting hold of and what use would we make of it? NB I'm hoping for a more specific answer than "we want ALL OF IT and we'll use it EVERYWHERE" ;-) - I am looking for some concrete examples from you guys to go back to them with. :D The Land ( talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Hi all. I know this is a Phase V article, but I need some help with High Seas Fleet. My goal is to push it to FA so it can run on the main page on 31st May (this year is the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Jutland). I've got the article worked out, but there won't be time to run an ACR and still have time for the FAC, so I need some help from you guys to take a look and see what I missed. I should have about 2 weeks before my current FAC closes, so that should give us plenty of time to iron out any problems. Dan has agreed to copyedit the article once it's done, and any other help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. As I have been ducking in and out of articles in our scope, I came across List of battleships by country. Here,, there are links to lists of carracks, galleons, battleship and other ships by country, all under the name "Battleship", i.e. List of Japanese early battleships. The main list was created by User:Spooky Mulder. So, my question is, what should we do withthese pages? Forcefully change thme to reflect OMT? Leave them the way they are? Buggie111 ( talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The ever-excellent Hyperwar website has recently uploaded the USN's World War II-era Italian warship recognition guide. It's available here and has lots of excellent PD drawings and photos. Nick-D ( talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As a note the A class review for Operation Kita, which is within the scope of this project, will probably be closed (as a promotion) tomorrow unless there are any further comments. I'm probably going to take this to a FAC, so would welcome any comments/suggestions before this time. The ACR is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Kita. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the 'main' members of our little project will already know of (or own!) some of these reference works, but I found a nice little list of books if anyone stumbles onto our page and would like to help us out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Im starting to do some work on the American battleship class articles and noticed that the formatting of the infoboxes is irregular between articles. Specifically, the armament and armor sections vary between line breaks and bulleted lists. Consider Pennsylvania class battleship (line breaks), Nevada class battleship (bulleted), New York class battleship (both). What is the preferred style? Bonewah ( talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
About a month ago I posted on Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66) about the condition of the article. It would have been next on my list for FAR but I did Daniel Webster instead. This will allow OMT extra time to work on Kentucky before I take it to FAR. As long as Daniel Webster remains at FAR is the amount of time left before Kentucky goes to FAR. Brad ( talk) 22:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks this question should be right up your shipping lanes. I am reworking Operation Slapstick a British WWII landing at Taranto in Italy. As the British fleet approached the harbour the two Andrea Doria class battleships were seen leaving. Now do I need to prefix the Italian ship names with HMS - USS whatever the Italian equivalent is? Looking through your lists I cannot find anything. Thanks in advance. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Bunch of painting scans have been uploaded. Some of them include british warships such as:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-trafalgar-1898-24670
© Geni 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I have question - I can`t find such topic for Japan BC. There is no such topic? All articles are at least GA. PMG ( talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, thought I should share this with you all: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Germany/archive1. It's been a long time coming. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties with my reviewer in Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)/GA1 as he wants a detailed explanation as to why she became obsolete and was scrapped in 1960. I believe that a simple statement that she was obsolete suffices and he disagrees. Please weigh in with your opinion so we can put this to be one way or another.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When are we activating the rest of the phases? Phase I seems well on its way. W i k i C o p t e r 03:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of you might have spotted that there is a new (and rather useful, in my not-so-unbiased opinion) source of info on British ships over at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM. Most of the British ships are currently Starts, which suggests that the NMM info will probably have something to add (it tends not to for articles which are well on the way to FA status). Is it worth a few of us systematically updating the British battleships with the NMM's data? (This would also be pretty useful in scoping out what we can do with the rest of the NMM information :-) ) The Land ( talk) 08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The A-class Review for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer an opinion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to move the page Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser back to Kirov class battlecruiser. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is slightly off topic (but not by much), but does anyone have access to the 1922-1946 edition of Conway's? I need the dates the three pocket battleships were laid down (because Groner never gives the laid down dates, just launching and commissioning), and their page is annoyingly skipped in the google books scan. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I know this will be sometime away, but I think a plan should be developed for List of battleships. An editor commented on the talk page of List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union, about why so much "history" is in the article, why not just a table, few notes. This got me htinking about the situation with List of battleships. Are we goingto write a paragraph long history for each ship? This, at least in my eyes, seems extremely hard/severe. Buggie111 ( talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad ( talk) 05:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In looking at the criteria for the Titan's Cross, given that we only issue three variants of the award, I wonder if my fellow OMT members would object to adding one additional criteria point to the three we currently have. As it stands now, the criteria are:
What I would like to add is a point between #2 and #3 to make require (within limits of course) candidates for the award to have already received both the WikiChevrons and the WP:SHIPS barnstar, which would result in the following proposed criteria listing:
Thoughts on this? TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Posting a brief note here to alert anyone watching this page of the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Special projects, regarding the special projects in general. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
A member of the project, bahamut0013, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of bahamut0013's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Timestamp added due to lack of one Buggie111 ( talk)
We have a number of articles at ACR that fall under our rubric. Please take some time and consider if they meet our A-class criteria!
HMS Queen Mary
Brazilian battleship São Paulo
Iowa class battleship
SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)
16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Timestamp added due to lack of one
Buggie111 (
talk)
Since Bahamut is no longer with us, we need to think about the portal. I was looking at it today with the thought that we should try to push it to featured status in his honor. I noticed the the content page is badly out of date; I went though and fixed what I could, but others may want to check it as well. I think we should try to get in the habit of updating the page every time an article passes a substantial review. Anyone have any ideas/comments? Parsecboy ( talk) 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I was really bored one day and built a draft for the good topic for British dreadnoughts, even though it's quite a while away.
Two questions though, should this include HMS Eagle (1918), which was a BB ordered by Chile, bought by the UK and completed as a birdfarm. And how does the layout look? I've ordered things chronologically and kept the classes together. If Eagle is added it will lengthen the middle column, though, which might unbalance the look of the topic box. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that HMS Prince of Wales (53) has text copied directly from Garzke & Dulin's British, Soviet, French, and Dutch Battleships of World War II - we need to check the other articles Thurgate has written to see if similar problems exist. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interest of possibly motivating some of us, I present a large topic box that already well over half done. The biggest challenge is, I think, to write the list for this topic as it will have to explicate a lot of the design decisions made by each country.
I find these sorts of things a huge help as a motivator as it readily identifies what needs to be done and helps to keep you focused on your goal. Heck, this topic is already more than half-way to Featured Topic status!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I made the post-1930 topic box, but I don't remember why I used 1930. I think it was because the G3/Nelson/Lexington classes were vastly different from the ships designed in the 1930s. We really could split it along multiple ways; it may be good to hash this out now. Do we want one huge topic that will probably be rejected for being too big? Should be use battleship as the main topic, with dreadnought etc. and the country lists below, and the country lists forming subtopics (or dreadnought, pre-dreadnought, etc. forming subtopics?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It's just occurred to me that we're a lot closer to completing the overall battlecruiser topic than any of the other biggies:
This design is a little lopsided since I dislike breaking up classes, but that's not a big deal. Oddly enough, the Americans are in the worst shape, but it wouldn't take much to get them up to snuff. The interesting thing is that we're only five FAs away from qualifying for a FT right off the bat, thanks to Parsecboy's work, and we already have six articles at A-class. I'd suggest that we hold off on submitting this, even if we get everything else up to GA in the meantime, until we get those five articles promoted and can bypass GTC entirely. I'll claim dibs on Lex and Sara as I have a good technical history of both ships. Getting the main battlecruiser article up to GA will be a PITA as people keep on getting stuck on what is a battlecruiser because of careless usage by historians who don't know any better.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Buggie, I'm going to try to work on Guam here over the next few days or so, you're free to help if you want. I would imagine that Battlecruiser would be the capstone article, with List of battlecruisers as the first article listed in the topic. What we are forgetting are the Japanese battlecruisers, which will add nine articles (and require five further FAs), although of those, 3 are FAs and 4 more are As (remind me again why we haven't turned them into a topic yet?). Parsecboy ( talk) 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
'bout Guam, sure. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Buggie111 ( talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for another little dose of motivation, we are more than halfway done with an overall Russian BB topic. Also, when we promote all stub-andB class articles within our scope to GA, we will be halfway done! And I mean halfway done as in half of our articles will be GA's or higher! Buggie111 ( talk) 13:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria raised the issue of the artist who drew the line art for Brasseys during the HMS Eagle (1918) FAC. I know that this was resolved on another OMT FAC within the last year. Does anyone remember which one?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated this at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of Japan/archive1. Feel free to comment on the nomination and to help fix any issues. It would be nice if Cam or Ed has the time to take some of these A-class articles to FAC to speed up the completion of our overall battlecruiser Featured Topic. If RL prevents that, no big deal, we'll get there sooner or later.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been working of the list of dreadnought battleships of Russia enroute to a good topic and Buggie's asked me to consider stopping work on that article and to move all that content over to the list of battleships of Russia that he's been slowly working on in his user space. I'm not opposed to doing so, although we'll have to merge the one into the other. At any rate, the dreadnought topic only needs the list to pass FLC to qualify as a topic, but the predreadnought topic is only about half-way done. Here's their current status:
As much as I hate writing lists for FLC (I have to leave out what?), I kinda like having separate ones for predreadnoughts and dreadnoughts as that would allow us to distinguish between them in the body of the topic box, much like the national lists do for the proposed battlecruiser topic. However, this would raise the question of what we'd use for the topic lead article. I doubt anyone's really in favor of dual headers and a consolidated list of battleships of Russia would serve nicely (and reduce the need to write two lists). However, this isn't that big of a topic (45 articles if we have one consolidated list) and is reasonably manageable. The Royal Navy list of dreadnoughts numbers 55 articles alone and there are at least that many more for the predreadnoughts. Do we want to want to break what we've established as precedent (with Parsec's enormous German BB topic) and split them up? As I've been writing this, I think that I've pretty well convinced myself that we should have a consolidated topic, but I'd welcome your opinions regardless. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. I'm putting the finishing touches on a GT for German heavy cruisers, but I have a couple of questions. For the topic boxes, which would be better:
or
Also, in the main list, the box on the P class cruisers looks a little ridiculous to me as it currently stands. Would it make more sense to only have one row (i.e., "P1–P12" instead of 12 mostly empty rows)? Parsecboy ( talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A request for help: WT:MILHIST#USS Arizona (BB-39). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Saw we have a group page on Facebook. Just out of curiosity, whose posting the updates? Buggie111 ( talk) 00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
While hunting for too-small cats, I came across this disgusting mess. Ugh. Is any of this worth salvaging into the main article or should I just nominate the lot for deletion? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for USS Arizona (BB-39) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I was doing some work on Washington Naval Treaty, which is a bit of a neglected subject, and I decided to make a graph of battleship displacement vs date laid down to illustrate its effect. Let me know if you can think of ways to improve the result. :-) The Land ( talk) 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, Dominic over at NARA has a day here devoted to battleships. See User_talk:Dominic#National_Archives_ExtravaSCANza. To help him out (and keep stuff like this going in the future), should we/can we organize something between us to put the images in articles and/or improve a couple articles that use media they upload to the Commons? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The Featured Article Candidacy for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer your comments.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Between Christmas, writing about Andre Johnson and Plants versus Zombies, I've forgotten about the Petropavlovsk class, something I wanted to get to and finish before my summer break. My question is this: Should I modify the "History" section at Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) to something akin to the ones at Sevastopol and Poltava, or should I keep it? It looks rather good, cited with several sources and everything, but it would be rather, substandard compared to the other ship pages for that class. Thoughts? Buggie111 ( talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the current status of the global battlecruiser featured topic:
Including the Alaskas, we need six more FA-class articles before we can submit this as FTC; excluding them, we need five more. I believe that we should include the Alaskas for several reasons:
In other news, the FAC for New Zealand needs reviewers and I plan to nominate Akagi with Cla68 once I get home next week. So that will be two more down if they get promoted. I'll start another solo FAC after New Zealand, and I'll work on Lexington and Saratoga beginning next week, but it would be great to get some of the other A-class articles into FAC to speed things up.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Rather different topic: Sturm, do you think Borodino has a chance of passing with more sources, or is she always gonna be at A-Class? Buggie111 ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a question at Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61) regarding discrepancies between how we arrange the awards, ribbons and battlestars for the Iowa and how they are displayed on the ship itself. Once the issue is addressed and we know what the correct arrangement should be, would it be a good idea to assemble a single such image for each battleship? One example is here: File:USS Missouri (BB-63) Awards and Ribbons.PNG – Tomstar put that one together. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, now that Kentucky has been demoted at FAR, we're going to need to beat the article into at least GA quality in time to save the FT. I should have some time to work on it over the next couple of weeks - anybody else available to lend a hand? Parsecboy ( talk) 21:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Good news: I've just discovered we have an article for the song Sink the Bismark, so in addition to games, movies, and TV shows we now have our first official song (insofar as I can tell, anyway). TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I came across this at the Help Desk. I've emailed the Foundation and offered a possible OMT drive to bring the article up to TFA. As it's already at A-Class, it should be easy. Any takers? Buggie111 ( talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, I stumbled across this ship while reading through Ed's South American dreadnought race article, which is at FAC. It's a 7,000-ton ship armed with four 9.4" guns, and is classed as a battleship by Conway's 1860-1905 (which normally classifies ships we don't include as coastal battleships, turret ships, etc.). Is there a reason we haven't included it? Parsecboy ( talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey all - the ACR for this list has been open for about a month now, and one a couple comments have been made. Can a few of you take a look at the list and see if it meets the A-class standards? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a note for public consumption: apparently four items do not a list make, so don't bother wasting your time on lists with fewer than some random, arbitrary number of items that no one will identify. Cheers. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The FAC for HMS Vanguard is now open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Vanguard (23)/archive1. Any comments would be welcome.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey all - I just requested the four volumes from 1984 of Warship International from the library to work on Normandie class battleship. If there's anything else from those volumes anyone needs, I can scan it for you. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been talking to the National Maritime Museum in London (as some of you might know). They are interested to know what use we could make of the material in their archive catalogue. If we could get a bunch of Wikipedians to turn up, request bits of archival material, probably scan/digitise it (copyright allowing, but most of it is quite old), as well as look up the secondary sources in their library and go and look at / take photos of stuff in their collections - what would people be interested in getting hold of and what use would we make of it? NB I'm hoping for a more specific answer than "we want ALL OF IT and we'll use it EVERYWHERE" ;-) - I am looking for some concrete examples from you guys to go back to them with. :D The Land ( talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)