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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Hi all. I dropped by here because I need to check some deleted material, and for that I needed to log in. While logged in I noticed and subsequently nominated USS Iowa (BB-61) for a spot on WP:ITN out on the mainpage; further details can be found at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (Look for April 30). TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the deal with all these tables in USS Tennessee (BB-43)? I've removed a few that were too far from any probable use, and collapsed the others. What should we do with the others? Buggie111 ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened on the talk page of the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) centered on the issue of whether or not to include a mention of battleship's appearance in the music video If I Could Turn Back Time, all interested editors are welcome to participate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I just finished the article for French battlecruiser proposals from 1913. If anyone has anything to add to it, go for it. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, our showcase is rather out of date. Bahamut used to maintain it, but ... yeah. Seeing as we're all aware of what articles we've written have gotten to FA/A/GA, would you all be able to update your own articles on the list? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
For the short/long term goals bars are they updated by a bot or manually? Thurgate ( talk) 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What do y'all think of this list? I basically cobbled the tables together from the national lists and wrote a basic summary for the lead - I didn't want to write individual sections, as I feared it would duplicate too much from the national lists. In any case, is there anything missing from the intro section or anything? I'm thinking of putting it through the review process after the protected cruisers list gets finished up.
After this, the only articles left for the BC topic is the Battlecruiser article (which I've begun tinkering with) and the Saratoga article, which I think Sturm has his sights on. Anyone is more than welcome to assist me on the main BC article if you've got the time. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, if you're interested in knocking off some easy articles, there are a number of British pre-dreadnoughts that aren't in too bad of a shape. I just polished up HMS Magnificent (1894), which didn't take all that long. Just a thought. Parsecboy ( talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Its been nine months since bahamut0013 died, and being that our standard practice has been to hide inactive users on the user list, and that this is the accepted consensus for our group, I wanted to ask as a courtesy if there would be any objections to passing a referendum within the OMT community that would keep bahamut0013's name out on the current user list for as long as the project functions as a useful entity to Wikipedia. Since no one has hidden bahamut's name in the time since his passing I think we are all mutually agreed to do this, but being a stickler for due process I thought we might take the extra step to make it official so we can add a hidden note or a ref tab notice or something of that nature to make sure his name remains out for all to see. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
As a heads up, USS Iowa is currently slated to open up to the public on July 7. When that happens, we can expect a small army of people on here looking at the Iowa-class articles. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion over on the the GAN for the KGV class article for which I would like some opinions. The article has more detailed data on fuel consumption, down to pounds of fuel consumed per shp, than I've seen in most of my sources for any ship. I believe that this level of detail is excessive for Wiki, especially since most naval historians don't go to this level. I don't contest the accuracy of Damwiki1's research, but I believe that it's adding more information than necessary to an already long article. It should be condensed into something like "the ships were very economical on fuel, although the wartime decrease in fuel quality offset that", or some such. Thoughts, opinions?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the bot tracking our articles seems to run very sporadically?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
These are the current OMT-related articles that need reviewers. Please take some time and offer your comments and/or thoughts.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
While not related to OMT, two other ship articles by OMT participants need some attention:
I have been recently adding links to parallel pages for ships (which are in some cases somewhat thin, but with new information such as lists oftheir captains) and their classes (which are generally extremely rich with details not to be found anywhere else on the web, and referenced with a thoroughnes that exceeds Wikipedia standards) on The Dreadnought Project. Perhaps it was clumsy to use a template that added a double-link (one to the ship page, one to its class page) in a single line, but to have them pulled from a list of other external links that often have a single screenful of information found on the Wikipedia page itself or a few commonly found images seems odd.
One of the reasons for pulling the links was that our site is a Wiki, which makes no sense. We avoid duplicating effort of Wikipedia pages (essential, given our reliance on primary sources) and rely on a "See Also" link at the foot of every page if people want to see the sort of information available to sites restricted by WP:PRIMARY.
It's in no one's interest to provide links in specific cases if we've not yet sufficient value on our pages, but I'd hope that the OMT group would recognize the general value of learning what lay in a ship's transmitting station. DulcetTone ( talk) 11:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We've skirted around this issue before, but never definitively settled. I've recently gotten some info on the French Marceau-class ironclads and was thinking of working on some of them, but I noticed some naming issues and decided to see if the literature really defined predreadnoughts vs ironclads. Surprisingly I didn't find anything of real use for anything other than the Brits. I went through my library and found that many books didn't even address the issue; either they were more focused on the technological advances or they were too general:
Several plumped for the Royal Sovereign-class battleships:
Karl Lautenschlager argued for the Majestic-class battleships in a 2-part article on those ships in Warship VII. He subdivided the earlier ships into ironclads and armourclads without defining either. Presumably, the armourclads were those ships that used steel/compound armour instead of wrought iron. This might be a useful distinction that could cover all of the odd-balls of the 1880s that we have a hard time classifying, but I'd like to see somebody else make this distinction.
I have a fairly comprehensive library, but not certainly not nearly everything written on BBs, so who calls the Admiral-class battleships the first predreadnoughts? I'm not necessarily arguing with that classification, but what's our source?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We've never definitely settled on a definition for dreadnaught for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that due to the multiple countries and their design preferences for constructing a gun ship any attempt to define such a ship by standards like armor, weaponry, battery placement, power plant, or speed would bump up against someone's definition of battleship. The general rule to date has been to go with whatever the country in question classified the vessel as, with the rough arrival of the predreadnaoughts judged to be about 1890-1900. If the boat it the water earlier than that it would generally be regarded as an ironclad, which for our purposes is outside the purview of this particular special project. Any issues related to whether a ship built before 1890-1900 qualifies as a battleship or battlecruiser under our definition can be brought up here for inclusion consideration. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A total of 29 articles. There are some related issues as to nomenclature of the articles as a lot of navies used battleship, or the equivalent term, for all large armored warships and I've already butted heads with some people who objected when I renamed articles from X battleship Y to X ironclad Y. As well as the terminology in the lede. What can we do to avoid silly naming fights like that? So look over the ships that I've listed and see if there's anything that I missed or we should include regardless of date.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all - I don't know much about WP:FP, but I stumbled across File:Justice 1909 LOC det 4a16114.jpg while rewriting the article, and it occurred to me that the photo might be a good FP candidate, given the quality and high resolution. Does anyone here have experience with FP? Parsecboy ( talk) 02:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nergaal raised a point I had overlooked. By promoting this topic as-is, we'll lose the MG and Rivadavia topics. Will that mess with the eventual goal of getting all battleships and battlecruisers in a featured topic? (I'm assuming we wouldn't want the dreadnought race article in it -- I'd have to create a "List of dreadnoughts of South America" article, or something). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This topic has been nominated for removal as a featured topic as USS Kentucky (BB-66) lost its status as a featured article last November. If this task force would like to take the time, please improve the article to at least GA status or the topic will be demoted.-- 十 八 10:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm up in Clovis at the moment and the internet connection here is such that my laptop doesn't connect to it at all. I didn't figure this to be a problem when I opened the GAC for Kentucky, but now I am reduced to editing on my brother's laptop and tomorrow that gonna be gone when my brother leaves for his two weeks of vacation. Can someone step up and help out with the GAC? If it clears while I was out then you have my permission to take all the credit.glory for the promotion. Incidentally, this is likely to be the last you'll here from me here until the 24th unless I can figure out a way to jury rigged an internet connection for my computer that actually works. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look: Wikipedia:Questia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks.
We've hit a milestone today: I found a reliable source to address the last uncited tag in the article. With all issues apparently addressed by the community effort in the article I've opened a peer review to get feedback on what still needs done to get the call article back up to FA status. Since this is not so much my article as it is our article I thought I would stop by to invite comments from you all on what we could do better, what we did right, and what we still have to do in order to move on up. Please stop by if you get a moment and leave your two cents on the page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's a potential featured topic that I've been thinking about for a while:
As you can see, this currently covers BCs only because I doubted that we'd be able to get Béarn up to GA status, but it would be easy enough to add it and Kaga and cover all ships converted to CVs because of the Washington Treaty if we can. Writing the list article wouldn't be particularly onerous although I'm still struggling to find a concise title and would welcome suggestions.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As usual there are OMT articles at WP:GAN, WP:ACR, WP:FAC and WP:FLC that could use commenters if you find yourselves with a few free minutes over the holidays.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Possibly a little tangential to OMT, but I thought the shipbuilding aspect might appeal! Their scope covers all of Category:Tyne-built ships, among other things...
The Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums are advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence ( announcement). It's a funded post, part-time through spring and early summer, based in Newcastle (so may well suit a student). Applications are open until 4th March. They're particularly interested in the prospect of someone wanting to work with the shipbuilding & industrial history collections, and digitising some of the material they have in their archives. Details are available on their website, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.
Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions! Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys I was working through some red-linked categories, and thought you should know about the following :
OK, I know those last couple aren't technically in the scope of OMT, but you might as well have them. I don't mind creating the above myself, but I figured that you guys are normally so thorough that their absence probably meant those topics had other loose threads hanging so you might want to have a poke around. Le Deluge ( talk) 16:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The following OMT-related reviews need people to comment on them:
And the following articles are waiting for reviewers at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Nominations#Warfare
And not really in our purview, but I'd like to get somebody to finish it off:
Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey all - I've noticed some discrepancies in dates while reworking USS Utah (BB-31) from the DANFS entry. I don't know if this was accidental, or some form of subtle vandalism, but I thought I should pass along the word so we keep an eye on this kind of thing. Parsecboy ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm contemplating taking this article to FAC since Breyer actually has a good description of the ship. The Tosa article itself references vol. 4 of Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships. I have the first three volumes, but not four. I expect to need it for the class article and I'm hoping that one of y'all might be able to send me a copy of the issue.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, Is anyone interested in writing an op-ed article for the upcoming edition of The Bugle providing an update on where this project is up to and the next steps? There's been steady progress in developing articles, and I think that lots of readers would be interested in finding out more. Nick-D ( talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
.
Hello Titans
I love your work. I truly love it. I translated to Polish many of yours GA and FA. Well - I also translated two full FT. But... But YOU NEEED TO STOP. You need to STOP IGNORING WORLD USING THE METRIC SYSTEM. Examples? Here you go:
But maybe the A-class articles are any better? Nope.
But maybe the FL articles are bit better? Niet.
But maybe the FA articles are slightly better? No.
And all those funny articles like USS Wyoming (BB-32), where there is clear info about guns in mm. No. The ship was armed with a main battery of twelve 12 inch/50 Mark 7[b] guns in six twin gun turrets on the centerline. Or the infobox in USS Arkansas (BB-33). Or the infobox in Colorado-class battleship. Or the infobox in South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Or the infobox in Mississippi-class battleship.
And all those funny lists when you force people accustomed to the metric system to search "where this guys last time put conversion to milimeters". You don`t trust me? So lets play a game. Go to List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy, and then to Admiral class. Do you see that Armour is "12 inches"? So try to find where was the last conversion to mm. Did you find it? Because it`s in "Invincible class". Just like 6 PgUP before. But PMG - for sure metric countries lists look exactly the same and the user needs to do the conversion mentally or jump across the whole page like an angry ferret? Nope. In List of battleships of Germany and List of battleships of Germany and in any other place where centimeters are used, there is a conversion to inches.
Well Titans. I tried once. I tried twice. I even tried a third time, but I hear from an experienced editor that 8 inches is 200 mm, not 203 mm despite navweaps says it`s 203 mm.
And I am not talking about random article about destroyer where half of the class has 102 mm, and the second half has 100 mm guns despite on every ship there was the same type of gun. I am talking about our beloved battleships.
And I really don`t care that it`s a conversion template error. You put that {{USS}} {{HMS}} family of templates in almost every article about warships. You created and forced people to use some complex infoboxes. You can at least in FA use the correct conversions. Look how little work I am asking you to do. I will go with a smile to the Operation Titans GA and A-class articles with the incorrect conversions and I will be accepting that "yes, for sure the correct conversion to milimeters is too difficult for people who just wrote A-class article that is 89k characters long about an important warship".
I love you Titans. But this love is a tough one. And year after year I expect less and less from you. So please - just FA with correct conversion and especially everywhere where you use inches.
PMG ( talk) 20:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The good topic for Russian battleships only needs one article rewritten and its list completed to be finished off. However, there's a real question about its coverage that we need to answer, and it relates to the definition of battleship. We've decided that we only cover pre-dreadnoughts and afterwards, basically starting with the Royal Sovereigns of 1889 or the closest foreign equivalent. Most countries, however, built what were often called battleships before that time, they just weren't ships that we care about because they aren't pre-dreadnoughts. But since the lists are supposed to be comprehensive should they be included in the lists and good topics, even if we don't consider them in our purview? We can narrow the scope of the topics/lists by calling them list/topic of pre-dreadnought and dreadnought battleships, but that's kind of an awkward name and it leaves us in an awkward relationship with the larger, more-encompassing lists of battleships which will generally only have a class or two of ships that are on that awkward line between ironclads and pre-dreadnoughts. This is an issue for Russia and France, at the very least, and both have the potential to be completed in the next several months, so we need to start thinking about this now.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 08:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Presented for your consideration:
I think that this organization makes more sense than the post-1930 topic that Ed had mentioned years ago. The post-treaty topic is nearly already finished with only four articles and a list to go. And a couple of upgrades to FAC will qualify it as a FT. Just something to consider when choosing your next ship to work on.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm nearly done revising the battlecruiser article, but I'm having a hard time sourcing the first para of the cruiser-killer section. I've trawled through most everything available to me, but am not having any luck. Can anybody help as I'm not aware of a single source that covers the rationale for these ships.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I know that we're not supposed to have lists of commanders, but rather integrate them into the text, but has this ever been formalized as a guideline or policy? I checked both Ships and MilHist MOS, but nada. Is this just an informal thing? And, if so, should we start a mini-RfC to formalize it? I asked because I'm gonna have a fight with an editor over his listing of the ship's officers in the USS Monitor article and I'd like to have more to argue with than, essentially, just cause that's the way that we've been doing it.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The FAC for Operation Tungsten, which covers a British carrier raid on the German battleship Tirpitz in April 1944, would benefit from some additional reviewers. I'd appreciate it if editors with an interest in this topic could comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1 - please post a negative review if you think that it's not up to scratch. Nick-D ( talk) 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty much finished with the Shinano article, but I'd like to ask for comments as I'm planning on fast-tracking it to FAC. Anything that I missed, need to expand on, or general questions?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I was looking at the core articles section, and it seems to me that the main battleship lists will need to be overhauled. We currently have List of battleships, List of battleship classes, and List of battleships by country. When the main list is reworked a la List of battlecruisers, the latter two will become redundant (since they will be grouped by class and by nationality). It will, however, become a monstrous list and will probably need to be split. It seems obvious to me to make the cut at List of pre-dreadnought battleships and List of dreadnought battleships, since that is an obvious and non-controversial demarcation, and it mirrors the structure we have for the larger national topics (i.e., List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy, and so forth). It'll probably be a while before we get to this stage, but I thought it was worth bringing up to see if there were other viewpoints. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
In recognition of the featured topic Battlecruisers of the world which includes a record 63 articles after 5 years of commendable work, I bestow this award on those who participated in Operation Majestic Titan and who have served honorably during the preeceding 5 years, bringing great credit on themselves, WikiProject Military History, and English Wikipedia. -- Pine ✉ 06:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been poking around the start class articles looking for work I can do. While looking I saw that HMS Warspite (03) is rated Start; it seems like it should be rated much better than start, am I correct? Wincent77 ( talk) 04:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I may be biased because I am improving the Fore River Shipyard article as I write this, but would it be a crazy idea to add shipyards to Phase V? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
Having been motivated by Pine above I would like to congratulate Operation Majestic Titan myself. Not a day goes by that it doesn't seem like some capital ship related article has reached featured status on the main page. Why just today it is the battleship Sevastopol. I am not aware of another WikiProject which has been so visibly successful. My hat is off to you guys. -- Noha307 ( talk) 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
In a completely useless post for you all, I rediscovered bahamut's 8-ball today. It's still pretty relevant. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
This is worth mining - the scans aren't exactly the best, but they are high-res and cover ships that aren't available at the Hyperwar link Nick found a few years back. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at Super battleship (warship)... I'm thinking it should be AfD'd, but not sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey all - if you're working with DANFS and notice any errors in the entries, please post them here. I've been in contact with the director of the NHHC over some minor issues I found in the DANFS article on USS Michigan (BB-27). They've been working on improving DANFS and they'd appreciate any help we can give them. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
navsource}}
works would seem ideal.The ten armored cruisers of this class have at least three different types of boilers and 3-4 different armament configurations; rather than try to present all that info in paragraphs, I think it would be easier to add that info to a massive table that would also collect original name, final name, and owning navy as well the standard building data. I'd still cover the usual information in the description, the table would just let me show what exact configuration each ship had rather than have to write it all out. Alternatively, I could add a sentence for each ship covering that info, but that would virtually force me to dedicate a paragraph for each ship rather than lumping similar histories together as I'd prefer to do (if for no other reason than to cut down on repetition). What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm not part of this project but I saw it and I remembered this website that I found a while ago. I think you all would find it very useful for your project it has the log books of a variety of ships among other things and a lot of other information that I haven't even looked at yet. Anyways I hope you all find this useful here is the link to the website. http://www.naval-history.net/index.htm Shashenka ( talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Why hasn't anybody nominated the battlecruiser overview topic yet? To me it seems complete. Nergaal ( talk) 17:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've finally started working on this and am looking for comments, even though it's early days yet. Parsec wrote a decent high-level summary, but I'm not sure how to integrate it, or even if it should be, into my more detailed text pulled from the various class articles. Also wondering if I should expand the background section on the Fuji class with a few more details as it's looking a bit skimpy.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Battleship wordmark now available! More info at WT:MILHIST. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This article by one of Australia's leading defence analysts makes for an interesting read, and makes good use of Wikipedia's warship related content. Nick-D ( talk) 09:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Tony DiGiulian emailed me that he will be reformatting NavWeaps.com in a way that will break all current links to it, but likely not for a year. Here's what he sent me:
Right now, there are about 1,600 links from Wiki English to NavWeaps plus more for those Wikis in other languages. The majority of these may all get broken over the next year or so with the exception of any link on Wiki to www.navweaps.com itself which would still work correctly.
The reason for this is that I am considering upgrading the website from being HTML 4 based to being HTML 5 (php/css) based. This means that my webpages will go from having .htm extensions to having .php extensions. This change would obviously break any existing link to my webpages that point to an .htm extension. My first example of a .php extension would be a new main page found here:
http://www.navweaps.com/NavWeaps.php
The “Contact” and “12”/45 Mark 5 and 6” webpages linked from the above webpage are also in php format. These php pages are not “live” yet, as I am still working out the details of the format and haven’t yet settled on the final form.
In addition, the web designer that I am working with is encouraging me to change my directory structures so as to make it more friendly to mobile users. For example, I use “index_tech” as the directory for my Technology pages, he wants me to change this to be more like “Technology/index.php” which is more user-friendly. Again, this would break existing Wiki links.
I just wanted to give you a “heads up” at this point as I don’t want to create unnecessary problems and extra work at your end. If I decide to go down this path, then I’m looking at a timeframe of something of over a year before the website would be completely converted over as I have 1K+ webpages and it will obviously be a considerable effort to change them all over to the new format.
Sincerely yours, Tony DiGiulian http://www.navweaps.com
RobDuch ( talk) 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this article which covers a design study for the RN for a BC to succeed the Admiral class. But we don't do design studies, with rare exceptions like the Dutch BCs which had an actual chance for steel to be cut. It's well written, but how do we break to the new editor that it's not really worth an article? BTW, he also added a section to the list of British BCs, which is thorough thinking on his part. I'd like to encourage him to direct his talents in a slightly different direction without alienating him entirely. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Please take a look at mass deletion request on Commons. As precedent it may be potential disaster to many valuable battleship pictures uploaded by many authors. -- Maxrossomachin ( talk) 10:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Should the redirects that don't deserve their own article's be labeled as such in their notes section? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 12 November 2016 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Hi all. I dropped by here because I need to check some deleted material, and for that I needed to log in. While logged in I noticed and subsequently nominated USS Iowa (BB-61) for a spot on WP:ITN out on the mainpage; further details can be found at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (Look for April 30). TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the deal with all these tables in USS Tennessee (BB-43)? I've removed a few that were too far from any probable use, and collapsed the others. What should we do with the others? Buggie111 ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened on the talk page of the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) centered on the issue of whether or not to include a mention of battleship's appearance in the music video If I Could Turn Back Time, all interested editors are welcome to participate. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I just finished the article for French battlecruiser proposals from 1913. If anyone has anything to add to it, go for it. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, our showcase is rather out of date. Bahamut used to maintain it, but ... yeah. Seeing as we're all aware of what articles we've written have gotten to FA/A/GA, would you all be able to update your own articles on the list? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
For the short/long term goals bars are they updated by a bot or manually? Thurgate ( talk) 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What do y'all think of this list? I basically cobbled the tables together from the national lists and wrote a basic summary for the lead - I didn't want to write individual sections, as I feared it would duplicate too much from the national lists. In any case, is there anything missing from the intro section or anything? I'm thinking of putting it through the review process after the protected cruisers list gets finished up.
After this, the only articles left for the BC topic is the Battlecruiser article (which I've begun tinkering with) and the Saratoga article, which I think Sturm has his sights on. Anyone is more than welcome to assist me on the main BC article if you've got the time. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey all, if you're interested in knocking off some easy articles, there are a number of British pre-dreadnoughts that aren't in too bad of a shape. I just polished up HMS Magnificent (1894), which didn't take all that long. Just a thought. Parsecboy ( talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Its been nine months since bahamut0013 died, and being that our standard practice has been to hide inactive users on the user list, and that this is the accepted consensus for our group, I wanted to ask as a courtesy if there would be any objections to passing a referendum within the OMT community that would keep bahamut0013's name out on the current user list for as long as the project functions as a useful entity to Wikipedia. Since no one has hidden bahamut's name in the time since his passing I think we are all mutually agreed to do this, but being a stickler for due process I thought we might take the extra step to make it official so we can add a hidden note or a ref tab notice or something of that nature to make sure his name remains out for all to see. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
As a heads up, USS Iowa is currently slated to open up to the public on July 7. When that happens, we can expect a small army of people on here looking at the Iowa-class articles. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion over on the the GAN for the KGV class article for which I would like some opinions. The article has more detailed data on fuel consumption, down to pounds of fuel consumed per shp, than I've seen in most of my sources for any ship. I believe that this level of detail is excessive for Wiki, especially since most naval historians don't go to this level. I don't contest the accuracy of Damwiki1's research, but I believe that it's adding more information than necessary to an already long article. It should be condensed into something like "the ships were very economical on fuel, although the wartime decrease in fuel quality offset that", or some such. Thoughts, opinions?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the bot tracking our articles seems to run very sporadically?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
These are the current OMT-related articles that need reviewers. Please take some time and offer your comments and/or thoughts.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
While not related to OMT, two other ship articles by OMT participants need some attention:
I have been recently adding links to parallel pages for ships (which are in some cases somewhat thin, but with new information such as lists oftheir captains) and their classes (which are generally extremely rich with details not to be found anywhere else on the web, and referenced with a thoroughnes that exceeds Wikipedia standards) on The Dreadnought Project. Perhaps it was clumsy to use a template that added a double-link (one to the ship page, one to its class page) in a single line, but to have them pulled from a list of other external links that often have a single screenful of information found on the Wikipedia page itself or a few commonly found images seems odd.
One of the reasons for pulling the links was that our site is a Wiki, which makes no sense. We avoid duplicating effort of Wikipedia pages (essential, given our reliance on primary sources) and rely on a "See Also" link at the foot of every page if people want to see the sort of information available to sites restricted by WP:PRIMARY.
It's in no one's interest to provide links in specific cases if we've not yet sufficient value on our pages, but I'd hope that the OMT group would recognize the general value of learning what lay in a ship's transmitting station. DulcetTone ( talk) 11:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We've skirted around this issue before, but never definitively settled. I've recently gotten some info on the French Marceau-class ironclads and was thinking of working on some of them, but I noticed some naming issues and decided to see if the literature really defined predreadnoughts vs ironclads. Surprisingly I didn't find anything of real use for anything other than the Brits. I went through my library and found that many books didn't even address the issue; either they were more focused on the technological advances or they were too general:
Several plumped for the Royal Sovereign-class battleships:
Karl Lautenschlager argued for the Majestic-class battleships in a 2-part article on those ships in Warship VII. He subdivided the earlier ships into ironclads and armourclads without defining either. Presumably, the armourclads were those ships that used steel/compound armour instead of wrought iron. This might be a useful distinction that could cover all of the odd-balls of the 1880s that we have a hard time classifying, but I'd like to see somebody else make this distinction.
I have a fairly comprehensive library, but not certainly not nearly everything written on BBs, so who calls the Admiral-class battleships the first predreadnoughts? I'm not necessarily arguing with that classification, but what's our source?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We've never definitely settled on a definition for dreadnaught for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that due to the multiple countries and their design preferences for constructing a gun ship any attempt to define such a ship by standards like armor, weaponry, battery placement, power plant, or speed would bump up against someone's definition of battleship. The general rule to date has been to go with whatever the country in question classified the vessel as, with the rough arrival of the predreadnaoughts judged to be about 1890-1900. If the boat it the water earlier than that it would generally be regarded as an ironclad, which for our purposes is outside the purview of this particular special project. Any issues related to whether a ship built before 1890-1900 qualifies as a battleship or battlecruiser under our definition can be brought up here for inclusion consideration. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A total of 29 articles. There are some related issues as to nomenclature of the articles as a lot of navies used battleship, or the equivalent term, for all large armored warships and I've already butted heads with some people who objected when I renamed articles from X battleship Y to X ironclad Y. As well as the terminology in the lede. What can we do to avoid silly naming fights like that? So look over the ships that I've listed and see if there's anything that I missed or we should include regardless of date.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all - I don't know much about WP:FP, but I stumbled across File:Justice 1909 LOC det 4a16114.jpg while rewriting the article, and it occurred to me that the photo might be a good FP candidate, given the quality and high resolution. Does anyone here have experience with FP? Parsecboy ( talk) 02:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nergaal raised a point I had overlooked. By promoting this topic as-is, we'll lose the MG and Rivadavia topics. Will that mess with the eventual goal of getting all battleships and battlecruisers in a featured topic? (I'm assuming we wouldn't want the dreadnought race article in it -- I'd have to create a "List of dreadnoughts of South America" article, or something). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This topic has been nominated for removal as a featured topic as USS Kentucky (BB-66) lost its status as a featured article last November. If this task force would like to take the time, please improve the article to at least GA status or the topic will be demoted.-- 十 八 10:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm up in Clovis at the moment and the internet connection here is such that my laptop doesn't connect to it at all. I didn't figure this to be a problem when I opened the GAC for Kentucky, but now I am reduced to editing on my brother's laptop and tomorrow that gonna be gone when my brother leaves for his two weeks of vacation. Can someone step up and help out with the GAC? If it clears while I was out then you have my permission to take all the credit.glory for the promotion. Incidentally, this is likely to be the last you'll here from me here until the 24th unless I can figure out a way to jury rigged an internet connection for my computer that actually works. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look: Wikipedia:Questia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks.
We've hit a milestone today: I found a reliable source to address the last uncited tag in the article. With all issues apparently addressed by the community effort in the article I've opened a peer review to get feedback on what still needs done to get the call article back up to FA status. Since this is not so much my article as it is our article I thought I would stop by to invite comments from you all on what we could do better, what we did right, and what we still have to do in order to move on up. Please stop by if you get a moment and leave your two cents on the page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's a potential featured topic that I've been thinking about for a while:
As you can see, this currently covers BCs only because I doubted that we'd be able to get Béarn up to GA status, but it would be easy enough to add it and Kaga and cover all ships converted to CVs because of the Washington Treaty if we can. Writing the list article wouldn't be particularly onerous although I'm still struggling to find a concise title and would welcome suggestions.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As usual there are OMT articles at WP:GAN, WP:ACR, WP:FAC and WP:FLC that could use commenters if you find yourselves with a few free minutes over the holidays.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Possibly a little tangential to OMT, but I thought the shipbuilding aspect might appeal! Their scope covers all of Category:Tyne-built ships, among other things...
The Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums are advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence ( announcement). It's a funded post, part-time through spring and early summer, based in Newcastle (so may well suit a student). Applications are open until 4th March. They're particularly interested in the prospect of someone wanting to work with the shipbuilding & industrial history collections, and digitising some of the material they have in their archives. Details are available on their website, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.
Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions! Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys I was working through some red-linked categories, and thought you should know about the following :
OK, I know those last couple aren't technically in the scope of OMT, but you might as well have them. I don't mind creating the above myself, but I figured that you guys are normally so thorough that their absence probably meant those topics had other loose threads hanging so you might want to have a poke around. Le Deluge ( talk) 16:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The following OMT-related reviews need people to comment on them:
And the following articles are waiting for reviewers at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Nominations#Warfare
And not really in our purview, but I'd like to get somebody to finish it off:
Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey all - I've noticed some discrepancies in dates while reworking USS Utah (BB-31) from the DANFS entry. I don't know if this was accidental, or some form of subtle vandalism, but I thought I should pass along the word so we keep an eye on this kind of thing. Parsecboy ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm contemplating taking this article to FAC since Breyer actually has a good description of the ship. The Tosa article itself references vol. 4 of Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships. I have the first three volumes, but not four. I expect to need it for the class article and I'm hoping that one of y'all might be able to send me a copy of the issue.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, Is anyone interested in writing an op-ed article for the upcoming edition of The Bugle providing an update on where this project is up to and the next steps? There's been steady progress in developing articles, and I think that lots of readers would be interested in finding out more. Nick-D ( talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
.
Hello Titans
I love your work. I truly love it. I translated to Polish many of yours GA and FA. Well - I also translated two full FT. But... But YOU NEEED TO STOP. You need to STOP IGNORING WORLD USING THE METRIC SYSTEM. Examples? Here you go:
But maybe the A-class articles are any better? Nope.
But maybe the FL articles are bit better? Niet.
But maybe the FA articles are slightly better? No.
And all those funny articles like USS Wyoming (BB-32), where there is clear info about guns in mm. No. The ship was armed with a main battery of twelve 12 inch/50 Mark 7[b] guns in six twin gun turrets on the centerline. Or the infobox in USS Arkansas (BB-33). Or the infobox in Colorado-class battleship. Or the infobox in South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Or the infobox in Mississippi-class battleship.
And all those funny lists when you force people accustomed to the metric system to search "where this guys last time put conversion to milimeters". You don`t trust me? So lets play a game. Go to List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy, and then to Admiral class. Do you see that Armour is "12 inches"? So try to find where was the last conversion to mm. Did you find it? Because it`s in "Invincible class". Just like 6 PgUP before. But PMG - for sure metric countries lists look exactly the same and the user needs to do the conversion mentally or jump across the whole page like an angry ferret? Nope. In List of battleships of Germany and List of battleships of Germany and in any other place where centimeters are used, there is a conversion to inches.
Well Titans. I tried once. I tried twice. I even tried a third time, but I hear from an experienced editor that 8 inches is 200 mm, not 203 mm despite navweaps says it`s 203 mm.
And I am not talking about random article about destroyer where half of the class has 102 mm, and the second half has 100 mm guns despite on every ship there was the same type of gun. I am talking about our beloved battleships.
And I really don`t care that it`s a conversion template error. You put that {{USS}} {{HMS}} family of templates in almost every article about warships. You created and forced people to use some complex infoboxes. You can at least in FA use the correct conversions. Look how little work I am asking you to do. I will go with a smile to the Operation Titans GA and A-class articles with the incorrect conversions and I will be accepting that "yes, for sure the correct conversion to milimeters is too difficult for people who just wrote A-class article that is 89k characters long about an important warship".
I love you Titans. But this love is a tough one. And year after year I expect less and less from you. So please - just FA with correct conversion and especially everywhere where you use inches.
PMG ( talk) 20:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The good topic for Russian battleships only needs one article rewritten and its list completed to be finished off. However, there's a real question about its coverage that we need to answer, and it relates to the definition of battleship. We've decided that we only cover pre-dreadnoughts and afterwards, basically starting with the Royal Sovereigns of 1889 or the closest foreign equivalent. Most countries, however, built what were often called battleships before that time, they just weren't ships that we care about because they aren't pre-dreadnoughts. But since the lists are supposed to be comprehensive should they be included in the lists and good topics, even if we don't consider them in our purview? We can narrow the scope of the topics/lists by calling them list/topic of pre-dreadnought and dreadnought battleships, but that's kind of an awkward name and it leaves us in an awkward relationship with the larger, more-encompassing lists of battleships which will generally only have a class or two of ships that are on that awkward line between ironclads and pre-dreadnoughts. This is an issue for Russia and France, at the very least, and both have the potential to be completed in the next several months, so we need to start thinking about this now.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 08:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Presented for your consideration:
I think that this organization makes more sense than the post-1930 topic that Ed had mentioned years ago. The post-treaty topic is nearly already finished with only four articles and a list to go. And a couple of upgrades to FAC will qualify it as a FT. Just something to consider when choosing your next ship to work on.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm nearly done revising the battlecruiser article, but I'm having a hard time sourcing the first para of the cruiser-killer section. I've trawled through most everything available to me, but am not having any luck. Can anybody help as I'm not aware of a single source that covers the rationale for these ships.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I know that we're not supposed to have lists of commanders, but rather integrate them into the text, but has this ever been formalized as a guideline or policy? I checked both Ships and MilHist MOS, but nada. Is this just an informal thing? And, if so, should we start a mini-RfC to formalize it? I asked because I'm gonna have a fight with an editor over his listing of the ship's officers in the USS Monitor article and I'd like to have more to argue with than, essentially, just cause that's the way that we've been doing it.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The FAC for Operation Tungsten, which covers a British carrier raid on the German battleship Tirpitz in April 1944, would benefit from some additional reviewers. I'd appreciate it if editors with an interest in this topic could comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1 - please post a negative review if you think that it's not up to scratch. Nick-D ( talk) 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty much finished with the Shinano article, but I'd like to ask for comments as I'm planning on fast-tracking it to FAC. Anything that I missed, need to expand on, or general questions?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I was looking at the core articles section, and it seems to me that the main battleship lists will need to be overhauled. We currently have List of battleships, List of battleship classes, and List of battleships by country. When the main list is reworked a la List of battlecruisers, the latter two will become redundant (since they will be grouped by class and by nationality). It will, however, become a monstrous list and will probably need to be split. It seems obvious to me to make the cut at List of pre-dreadnought battleships and List of dreadnought battleships, since that is an obvious and non-controversial demarcation, and it mirrors the structure we have for the larger national topics (i.e., List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy, and so forth). It'll probably be a while before we get to this stage, but I thought it was worth bringing up to see if there were other viewpoints. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
In recognition of the featured topic Battlecruisers of the world which includes a record 63 articles after 5 years of commendable work, I bestow this award on those who participated in Operation Majestic Titan and who have served honorably during the preeceding 5 years, bringing great credit on themselves, WikiProject Military History, and English Wikipedia. -- Pine ✉ 06:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been poking around the start class articles looking for work I can do. While looking I saw that HMS Warspite (03) is rated Start; it seems like it should be rated much better than start, am I correct? Wincent77 ( talk) 04:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I may be biased because I am improving the Fore River Shipyard article as I write this, but would it be a crazy idea to add shipyards to Phase V? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
Having been motivated by Pine above I would like to congratulate Operation Majestic Titan myself. Not a day goes by that it doesn't seem like some capital ship related article has reached featured status on the main page. Why just today it is the battleship Sevastopol. I am not aware of another WikiProject which has been so visibly successful. My hat is off to you guys. -- Noha307 ( talk) 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
In a completely useless post for you all, I rediscovered bahamut's 8-ball today. It's still pretty relevant. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
This is worth mining - the scans aren't exactly the best, but they are high-res and cover ships that aren't available at the Hyperwar link Nick found a few years back. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at Super battleship (warship)... I'm thinking it should be AfD'd, but not sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey all - if you're working with DANFS and notice any errors in the entries, please post them here. I've been in contact with the director of the NHHC over some minor issues I found in the DANFS article on USS Michigan (BB-27). They've been working on improving DANFS and they'd appreciate any help we can give them. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
navsource}}
works would seem ideal.The ten armored cruisers of this class have at least three different types of boilers and 3-4 different armament configurations; rather than try to present all that info in paragraphs, I think it would be easier to add that info to a massive table that would also collect original name, final name, and owning navy as well the standard building data. I'd still cover the usual information in the description, the table would just let me show what exact configuration each ship had rather than have to write it all out. Alternatively, I could add a sentence for each ship covering that info, but that would virtually force me to dedicate a paragraph for each ship rather than lumping similar histories together as I'd prefer to do (if for no other reason than to cut down on repetition). What do y'all think?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm not part of this project but I saw it and I remembered this website that I found a while ago. I think you all would find it very useful for your project it has the log books of a variety of ships among other things and a lot of other information that I haven't even looked at yet. Anyways I hope you all find this useful here is the link to the website. http://www.naval-history.net/index.htm Shashenka ( talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Why hasn't anybody nominated the battlecruiser overview topic yet? To me it seems complete. Nergaal ( talk) 17:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've finally started working on this and am looking for comments, even though it's early days yet. Parsec wrote a decent high-level summary, but I'm not sure how to integrate it, or even if it should be, into my more detailed text pulled from the various class articles. Also wondering if I should expand the background section on the Fuji class with a few more details as it's looking a bit skimpy.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Battleship wordmark now available! More info at WT:MILHIST. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This article by one of Australia's leading defence analysts makes for an interesting read, and makes good use of Wikipedia's warship related content. Nick-D ( talk) 09:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Tony DiGiulian emailed me that he will be reformatting NavWeaps.com in a way that will break all current links to it, but likely not for a year. Here's what he sent me:
Right now, there are about 1,600 links from Wiki English to NavWeaps plus more for those Wikis in other languages. The majority of these may all get broken over the next year or so with the exception of any link on Wiki to www.navweaps.com itself which would still work correctly.
The reason for this is that I am considering upgrading the website from being HTML 4 based to being HTML 5 (php/css) based. This means that my webpages will go from having .htm extensions to having .php extensions. This change would obviously break any existing link to my webpages that point to an .htm extension. My first example of a .php extension would be a new main page found here:
http://www.navweaps.com/NavWeaps.php
The “Contact” and “12”/45 Mark 5 and 6” webpages linked from the above webpage are also in php format. These php pages are not “live” yet, as I am still working out the details of the format and haven’t yet settled on the final form.
In addition, the web designer that I am working with is encouraging me to change my directory structures so as to make it more friendly to mobile users. For example, I use “index_tech” as the directory for my Technology pages, he wants me to change this to be more like “Technology/index.php” which is more user-friendly. Again, this would break existing Wiki links.
I just wanted to give you a “heads up” at this point as I don’t want to create unnecessary problems and extra work at your end. If I decide to go down this path, then I’m looking at a timeframe of something of over a year before the website would be completely converted over as I have 1K+ webpages and it will obviously be a considerable effort to change them all over to the new format.
Sincerely yours, Tony DiGiulian http://www.navweaps.com
RobDuch ( talk) 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this article which covers a design study for the RN for a BC to succeed the Admiral class. But we don't do design studies, with rare exceptions like the Dutch BCs which had an actual chance for steel to be cut. It's well written, but how do we break to the new editor that it's not really worth an article? BTW, he also added a section to the list of British BCs, which is thorough thinking on his part. I'd like to encourage him to direct his talents in a slightly different direction without alienating him entirely. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Please take a look at mass deletion request on Commons. As precedent it may be potential disaster to many valuable battleship pictures uploaded by many authors. -- Maxrossomachin ( talk) 10:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Should the redirects that don't deserve their own article's be labeled as such in their notes section? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)