![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
An editor new to OMT has been greatly expanding the section on the Kirov-class battlecruisers in the List of battlecruisers of Russia, so much so that I think they're dominating the list as there's much more information in that section than in any of the others. Other problems are that he's not matching the citations as used in the rest of the list, heavy use of web references, and a number of minor MOS violations. I've reverted his changes and posted an explanation on the talk page, but I invite all interested editors to weigh in on the subject there.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Exploring OFF LIMIT Areas WW2 Battleship USS Iowa Brad ( talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've started working up St Vincent-class battleship and would like some advice on how to handle summarizing the activities of the early British dreadnoughts. The Jellicoe book more than adequately covers the activities of the Grand Fleet before Jutland so I can easily fill out that time on the individual ship articles, but summarizing all that can easily be done in a single sentence. Similarly, they didn't actually do much during Jutland so there's not much that can be added, even including a summary of the Action of 19 August. And they did even less than that once Beatty took command as his orders were to conserve his ships and not expose them to submarines and mines. While I expected that the technical stuff would be the majority of the class article, I didn't expect this big of a disparity. So what's a fellow to do? This is going to be a problem for all of the early dreadnought class articles up until about the Iron Dukes as most of them didn't do much of interest. Even Warrender's ships (2nd BS?) are only good for a couple of extra sentences since they never actually engaged the Germans. Thoughts, comments?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason HMS Incomparable isn't listed here? It was a proposal for a large british battlecruiser. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a Featured List review currently underway here for List of sunken battleships. – Vami _IV✠ 08:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if they should be added. Because there are many new articles that would be added, and many are poorly developed, it would make sense to add it as a seperate phase, if there is a decision to do it at all. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Are the coastal battleships currently in scope of this project? Most nations that couldn't afford pre-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts included coastal battleships in their navies. If not in scope, can they please be added; possibly as a "Phase VI" or "VII"? Thanks and regards, DPdH ( talk) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, there are a handful of citations purporting to come from a work by H.P. Willmott in the Yamato-class battleship article, but there is no Willmott reference listed in the bibliography. The page numbers definitely do not correspond to Willmott's book The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action, so I am not sure where they are coming from exactly. You folks might be more familiar with the subject and so can fix the attributions here rather than myself just deleting the improper citations while leaving statements of fact un-sourced. Cheers, Finktron ( talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
So I was looking at the Formidable class last night, and both Burt and Conway's treat the class as consisting of just the first three ships - Bulwark and the rest are their own class. Apparently Gibbons treats them as one class divided into three sub-classes, but he might be the minority opinion. H.P. Wilmott refers to them as Burt does, though he calls it the London class, not the Bulwark class (so does the 1911 Britannica). Preston refers to them as the "Formidable/London/Queen classes". Pears also splits them up (into Formidable, London, and Queen classes). Sturm, you have Parkes, don't you? How does he describe them? Parsecboy ( talk) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Last night, I began work on List of battleships of the United States Navy and spent a couple hours on my overhaul of the list, which was reverted. In the notice of that reversion on the talk page, it was suggested that I post notices on pertinent WikiProjects to review my edit. Please follow this link to that talk page to discuss and review my work, its the second-most recent edit as of the writing of this notice. – Vami _IV✠ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It's good to be back everyone...a long 6-year hiatus has done me well.
Now, let's work to finish what we all started so many years ago.-- White Shadows One eye watching you 00:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd almost forgotten this fantasy article about Fisher's pie-in-the-sky concept battlecruiser, but an editor just tried to add it to the FA List of British Battlecruisers. All of its refs refer to comparable designs and nothing to Fisher's concept. Since this never even was reviewed by a competent naval architect it has less substance than Hitler's H-class battleships or the Japanese A-150s. I think it's time to put this up for AfD. What say y'all?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Phase I of OMT seems to be running out of steam, with there now being good coverage of most classes of battleships. Phase II on naval armaments strikes me as being a bit unexciting. Are other editors interested in getting stuck into Phase III on battles and other historical highlights involving battleships? Nick-D ( talk) 05:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find a lost of the requirements for each article class? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Given Heinrich Ehrler's role in the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz, does he qualify for Phase IV? Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Would any of you be interested in expanding USS Hornet (CV-12) before the Apollo 11 anniversary in July of next year? I think if it is at least GA, that would be good for the small influx of traffic it will likely see. Of course, if someone makes the effort to bring it above that, all the better for the readers. No worries either way, if someone was looking for a specific ship to work on, it would be great to pick this one up! Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I would just like to express my huge congratulation to all the editors to this project, you are not too far off from completing part 1 of this project which once done at the rate you are going in about 6 months, one big featured topic of over 500 articles!!!!! I have been keeping an eye on this project over the years and am amazed by the vast progress that's been made on what is a very important historical topic. What's the plan after this has been completed? 02blythed ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Your all most welcome. All of you that have done this work have created by far the greatest resource on military ships anywhere in the world, and all as volunteers. This is by far the biggest achievement on Wikipedia. You should all be very proud of yourself. Yea I remember myself in 2007 when I first discovered Wikipedia and this project had been created not too long after. As you say it has been a decades work in the making. I have seen the other phases but they aren't as significant in terms of work required like this one. 02blythed ( talk) 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I am reaching out on behalf of de:WP:Ahoi, a German-language Wikiproject looking into contemporary seafaring. We're in the (very) early stages of discussing a partnership with the Internationales Maritimes Museum Hamburg, which holds some 50,000 ship models of various sizes, many of them battleships. Speaking to The Land yesterday, I wanted to ask whether this is something you'd be interested in. Thanks, -- Gnom ( talk) 09:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
So I've started hacking away at USS California (BB-44), and the DANFS entry is...um...interesting:
Somehow I don't see that making its way into the article... Parsecboy ( talk) 21:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to know where we can improve this article for B-class or GA. I plan to work on it, prepare it for GA. CluelessEditoroverhere ( talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Do any of you have this source? It supports a statement in Soviet ship Kosmonavt Yuriy Gagarin, which says it was built in 1971. Would any of you be able to find the page number for me, and verify it was named after Gagarin initially and not later renamed? I am working on the Yuri Gagarin article. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Norman Polmar, Guide to the Soviet Navy, Fourth Edition (1986), United States Naval Institute, Annapolis Maryland, ISBN 0-87021-240-0
So it occurs to me that there isn't a whole lot of merit to have separate articles for their American and Greek careers - anybody opposed to merging them? Arguably the articles should be under their Greek names, since they were Greek for more than twice as long as they were American, and they actually saw (albeit limited) wartime service under the Greek flag. Anybody have opinions on this? Parsecboy ( talk) 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
While working on the Revenge-class battleship article, I was going to work in a mention of the "Royal Oak mutiny", and I noticed some problems with the referencing there that were introduced here - there might well be other problems that I haven't noticed, so we might want to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Big Seven (battleships) was just created by a new editor - anybody ever heard of this nickname? This looks to be World of Warships nonsense. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just created an article on this Vichyite organization; it might be useful for anyone working on Vichy French ships.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Is List of battleships by country necessary? If List of battleships ends up looking like List of battlecruisers, it would be redundant. I can AfD List of battleships by country if you agree (or you can, does not matter to me). Kees08 (Talk) 17:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do we have this list? The equivalent battlecruiser list redirects to List of battlecruisers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I've set up redirects for Krupp non-cemented armor and non-cemented armor (in both spellings) that link to Krupp armour#Homogeneous Krupp-type armour. I trust that they'll come in handy at some point.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
We're 26 start-, C- and B-class articles (excluding lists) away from qualifying for a GT.
I think it was CPA-5's comments not too long ago that really sparked Parsec and I into putting more effort into getting everything up to GA and focusing on pushing the max possible number of articles through ACR and FAC. With a lot of luck and some serious translation work, we should be able to get all of these through GAN by about year's end. And we'll be about 18 articles closer to getting half our articles through FAC or FL.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For those keeping score at home, the figures are now: 22 start-, C- and B-class articles left to do.
There are 9 lists left to do (not counting the Japanese and French lists, as the work on writing those is done and they just need to pass through the review processes). I'm planning on tackling three of the four remaining French vessels soon, probably after an American palate cleanser or two. And it occurs to me that the British pre-dreadnought half is done apart from Lord Nelson-class battleship. Cough cough. Parsecboy ( talk) 19:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A month later, and we're down to:
Are we feeling motivated yet? Parsecboy ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Another month has passed and we now still have to do:
These all need to get at least GA-class (or AL-class) by 2020 (well I assume that was our deadline). Now excuse me I've some homework to do before the drive and the Election will take place. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone noticed, I just removed a bunch of participants who are no longer active (i.e., no edits in the last year or so). I don't figure they need to clutter up the list. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Battleships? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I automated the progression bar based on categories, but I only get 498 good article and higher, and the number was 500 before. Did I miss a category or something? Seems like AL-Class doesn't exist and it is instead included in A-Class, so I don't think its that. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I am considering the MILHIST template on Talk:Battleship Island (Alaska), and other than the name, I do not see any connection with a Battleship for this article. I am considering removing it, but perhaps there is a different alternitive. Reply right here.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
So with the American topic quickly reaching completion, I was looking at the list and am wondering what to do with USS Texas (1892) - we don't have a List of ironclad warships of the United States to send it to, and there's also the question of what sources call the ship - I doubt "ironclad" is the most common. Should we keep it in the list and be prepared to answer the inevitable question at FTC? Parsecboy ( talk) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
A new (and since-blocked) account went around adding this book to a bunch of articles in the project - does anyone know if it's worth including, either in further reading sections or as a direct source? The idea of a chapter on Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII is intriguing, but I don't know if the book is actually any good or not. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
There's another effort to change she to it for ship articles underway. Discussion at WT:MOS if you haven't already offered your opinion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is curious, here's where we are now:
Unfortunately, those 9 British articles are going to require quite a bit of heavy lifting, and the 3 Americans won't be particularly fun either. I'm planning on doing the Americans eventually, and have started fiddling with the British pre-dreadnought list. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
About a month later, and here we are:
This tally doesn't include 2 American and 1 British articles waiting on their GA reviews. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
In case this went unnoticed I thought I would post here, there is a pre-Featured Article Review for Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. The specific points that should be addressed are at the talk page I linked. Take a look if you have time, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There's only one week left to reach the 10th anniversary of Phase I. On the 7th it's the anniversary and after almost a whole decade working only:
so in total, only 11 articles are bellow GA which is great progress and many things have changed and evolved in those 10 years. Unless someone wants to reach that sweet goal of every article (with exaption of the lists) being GA then it's now the time to work on those 11 articles. ;) But seriously, great job for still being active and keeping this project alive for a decade. I know this project almost hasn't any bellow-GA articles so I don't mind if someone wants to create another phase for other types like cruisers, avisos, battlecruisers and many more. Hopefully you guys would still stick here in 2030. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
König-class battleship is set to run on the main page in a week, and given its age (and the fact that a bunch of sources have been published since it passed FAC more than a decade ago), I figured it needed a complete overhaul. I don't think we have time to do a WP:GOCE request, so I was hoping that some of the stalwarts here could give it a once-over to find my mistakes ;) Thanks in advance. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
SMS Derfflinger is another old FAC that is set to run in the near future. I've recently overhauled it - can any of you spare a minute to look it over? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Now that we can expect that OMT will complete its FT in a couple of years, my question is what do we call the equivalent projects for cruisers and destroyers? I can't think of any nicknames for cruisers off-hand, but destroyers were often called the greyhounds of the sea, or, less formally, tin cans. I figure that there are about 1,500 cruiser articles, depending on how we handle the transition from frigates to cruisers, and only about 5,000 destroyer articles to do, again depending on how we define them (include escort destroyers like the WW2-era Hunts, and what about destroyer escorts and their British equivalent sloops?). So enough to keep us busy for a couple of decades, despite the several hundred good articles that we've already improved.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: & @ Parsecboy: How about "Operation Deus Bellum"? Deus bellum means "war gods" in Latin and the war gods in Greek, Roman, etc... were always been seen violent and the sign of war and violence. Destroyer, on the other hand, have the noun "destroy" in it which is used as a crush or demolish in something. We can use this as a kind of symbolic sign like Titan in the Greek mythology. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if you saw it, but the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy topic has passed its Good Topic nomination. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand that sometimes the consistent statistics are not available on more obscure vessels, but on well documented battleship classes, should we use a consistent standard? I am surprised to the the King George V-class battleship (1939) represented at the "deep load" statistic which at first blush to our readers seems to overstate the size of the ships in relation to other combatants of the era. This is not the only example, but seems more glaring due to the prominent role these vessels had in several WWII battles, and their origins in adherence to the lapsing treaty policies.
To readers less aware of the nuances of statistics, as written our articles show the KGV class to be larger than the Bismarck Class. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
An editor new to OMT has been greatly expanding the section on the Kirov-class battlecruisers in the List of battlecruisers of Russia, so much so that I think they're dominating the list as there's much more information in that section than in any of the others. Other problems are that he's not matching the citations as used in the rest of the list, heavy use of web references, and a number of minor MOS violations. I've reverted his changes and posted an explanation on the talk page, but I invite all interested editors to weigh in on the subject there.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Exploring OFF LIMIT Areas WW2 Battleship USS Iowa Brad ( talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've started working up St Vincent-class battleship and would like some advice on how to handle summarizing the activities of the early British dreadnoughts. The Jellicoe book more than adequately covers the activities of the Grand Fleet before Jutland so I can easily fill out that time on the individual ship articles, but summarizing all that can easily be done in a single sentence. Similarly, they didn't actually do much during Jutland so there's not much that can be added, even including a summary of the Action of 19 August. And they did even less than that once Beatty took command as his orders were to conserve his ships and not expose them to submarines and mines. While I expected that the technical stuff would be the majority of the class article, I didn't expect this big of a disparity. So what's a fellow to do? This is going to be a problem for all of the early dreadnought class articles up until about the Iron Dukes as most of them didn't do much of interest. Even Warrender's ships (2nd BS?) are only good for a couple of extra sentences since they never actually engaged the Germans. Thoughts, comments?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason HMS Incomparable isn't listed here? It was a proposal for a large british battlecruiser. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a Featured List review currently underway here for List of sunken battleships. – Vami _IV✠ 08:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if they should be added. Because there are many new articles that would be added, and many are poorly developed, it would make sense to add it as a seperate phase, if there is a decision to do it at all. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Are the coastal battleships currently in scope of this project? Most nations that couldn't afford pre-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts included coastal battleships in their navies. If not in scope, can they please be added; possibly as a "Phase VI" or "VII"? Thanks and regards, DPdH ( talk) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, there are a handful of citations purporting to come from a work by H.P. Willmott in the Yamato-class battleship article, but there is no Willmott reference listed in the bibliography. The page numbers definitely do not correspond to Willmott's book The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action, so I am not sure where they are coming from exactly. You folks might be more familiar with the subject and so can fix the attributions here rather than myself just deleting the improper citations while leaving statements of fact un-sourced. Cheers, Finktron ( talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
So I was looking at the Formidable class last night, and both Burt and Conway's treat the class as consisting of just the first three ships - Bulwark and the rest are their own class. Apparently Gibbons treats them as one class divided into three sub-classes, but he might be the minority opinion. H.P. Wilmott refers to them as Burt does, though he calls it the London class, not the Bulwark class (so does the 1911 Britannica). Preston refers to them as the "Formidable/London/Queen classes". Pears also splits them up (into Formidable, London, and Queen classes). Sturm, you have Parkes, don't you? How does he describe them? Parsecboy ( talk) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Last night, I began work on List of battleships of the United States Navy and spent a couple hours on my overhaul of the list, which was reverted. In the notice of that reversion on the talk page, it was suggested that I post notices on pertinent WikiProjects to review my edit. Please follow this link to that talk page to discuss and review my work, its the second-most recent edit as of the writing of this notice. – Vami _IV✠ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It's good to be back everyone...a long 6-year hiatus has done me well.
Now, let's work to finish what we all started so many years ago.-- White Shadows One eye watching you 00:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd almost forgotten this fantasy article about Fisher's pie-in-the-sky concept battlecruiser, but an editor just tried to add it to the FA List of British Battlecruisers. All of its refs refer to comparable designs and nothing to Fisher's concept. Since this never even was reviewed by a competent naval architect it has less substance than Hitler's H-class battleships or the Japanese A-150s. I think it's time to put this up for AfD. What say y'all?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Phase I of OMT seems to be running out of steam, with there now being good coverage of most classes of battleships. Phase II on naval armaments strikes me as being a bit unexciting. Are other editors interested in getting stuck into Phase III on battles and other historical highlights involving battleships? Nick-D ( talk) 05:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find a lost of the requirements for each article class? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Given Heinrich Ehrler's role in the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz, does he qualify for Phase IV? Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Would any of you be interested in expanding USS Hornet (CV-12) before the Apollo 11 anniversary in July of next year? I think if it is at least GA, that would be good for the small influx of traffic it will likely see. Of course, if someone makes the effort to bring it above that, all the better for the readers. No worries either way, if someone was looking for a specific ship to work on, it would be great to pick this one up! Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I would just like to express my huge congratulation to all the editors to this project, you are not too far off from completing part 1 of this project which once done at the rate you are going in about 6 months, one big featured topic of over 500 articles!!!!! I have been keeping an eye on this project over the years and am amazed by the vast progress that's been made on what is a very important historical topic. What's the plan after this has been completed? 02blythed ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Your all most welcome. All of you that have done this work have created by far the greatest resource on military ships anywhere in the world, and all as volunteers. This is by far the biggest achievement on Wikipedia. You should all be very proud of yourself. Yea I remember myself in 2007 when I first discovered Wikipedia and this project had been created not too long after. As you say it has been a decades work in the making. I have seen the other phases but they aren't as significant in terms of work required like this one. 02blythed ( talk) 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I am reaching out on behalf of de:WP:Ahoi, a German-language Wikiproject looking into contemporary seafaring. We're in the (very) early stages of discussing a partnership with the Internationales Maritimes Museum Hamburg, which holds some 50,000 ship models of various sizes, many of them battleships. Speaking to The Land yesterday, I wanted to ask whether this is something you'd be interested in. Thanks, -- Gnom ( talk) 09:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
So I've started hacking away at USS California (BB-44), and the DANFS entry is...um...interesting:
Somehow I don't see that making its way into the article... Parsecboy ( talk) 21:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to know where we can improve this article for B-class or GA. I plan to work on it, prepare it for GA. CluelessEditoroverhere ( talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Do any of you have this source? It supports a statement in Soviet ship Kosmonavt Yuriy Gagarin, which says it was built in 1971. Would any of you be able to find the page number for me, and verify it was named after Gagarin initially and not later renamed? I am working on the Yuri Gagarin article. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Norman Polmar, Guide to the Soviet Navy, Fourth Edition (1986), United States Naval Institute, Annapolis Maryland, ISBN 0-87021-240-0
So it occurs to me that there isn't a whole lot of merit to have separate articles for their American and Greek careers - anybody opposed to merging them? Arguably the articles should be under their Greek names, since they were Greek for more than twice as long as they were American, and they actually saw (albeit limited) wartime service under the Greek flag. Anybody have opinions on this? Parsecboy ( talk) 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
While working on the Revenge-class battleship article, I was going to work in a mention of the "Royal Oak mutiny", and I noticed some problems with the referencing there that were introduced here - there might well be other problems that I haven't noticed, so we might want to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Big Seven (battleships) was just created by a new editor - anybody ever heard of this nickname? This looks to be World of Warships nonsense. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just created an article on this Vichyite organization; it might be useful for anyone working on Vichy French ships.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Is List of battleships by country necessary? If List of battleships ends up looking like List of battlecruisers, it would be redundant. I can AfD List of battleships by country if you agree (or you can, does not matter to me). Kees08 (Talk) 17:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do we have this list? The equivalent battlecruiser list redirects to List of battlecruisers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I've set up redirects for Krupp non-cemented armor and non-cemented armor (in both spellings) that link to Krupp armour#Homogeneous Krupp-type armour. I trust that they'll come in handy at some point.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
We're 26 start-, C- and B-class articles (excluding lists) away from qualifying for a GT.
I think it was CPA-5's comments not too long ago that really sparked Parsec and I into putting more effort into getting everything up to GA and focusing on pushing the max possible number of articles through ACR and FAC. With a lot of luck and some serious translation work, we should be able to get all of these through GAN by about year's end. And we'll be about 18 articles closer to getting half our articles through FAC or FL.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For those keeping score at home, the figures are now: 22 start-, C- and B-class articles left to do.
There are 9 lists left to do (not counting the Japanese and French lists, as the work on writing those is done and they just need to pass through the review processes). I'm planning on tackling three of the four remaining French vessels soon, probably after an American palate cleanser or two. And it occurs to me that the British pre-dreadnought half is done apart from Lord Nelson-class battleship. Cough cough. Parsecboy ( talk) 19:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A month later, and we're down to:
Are we feeling motivated yet? Parsecboy ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Another month has passed and we now still have to do:
These all need to get at least GA-class (or AL-class) by 2020 (well I assume that was our deadline). Now excuse me I've some homework to do before the drive and the Election will take place. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone noticed, I just removed a bunch of participants who are no longer active (i.e., no edits in the last year or so). I don't figure they need to clutter up the list. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Battleships? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I automated the progression bar based on categories, but I only get 498 good article and higher, and the number was 500 before. Did I miss a category or something? Seems like AL-Class doesn't exist and it is instead included in A-Class, so I don't think its that. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I am considering the MILHIST template on Talk:Battleship Island (Alaska), and other than the name, I do not see any connection with a Battleship for this article. I am considering removing it, but perhaps there is a different alternitive. Reply right here.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
So with the American topic quickly reaching completion, I was looking at the list and am wondering what to do with USS Texas (1892) - we don't have a List of ironclad warships of the United States to send it to, and there's also the question of what sources call the ship - I doubt "ironclad" is the most common. Should we keep it in the list and be prepared to answer the inevitable question at FTC? Parsecboy ( talk) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
A new (and since-blocked) account went around adding this book to a bunch of articles in the project - does anyone know if it's worth including, either in further reading sections or as a direct source? The idea of a chapter on Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII is intriguing, but I don't know if the book is actually any good or not. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
There's another effort to change she to it for ship articles underway. Discussion at WT:MOS if you haven't already offered your opinion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is curious, here's where we are now:
Unfortunately, those 9 British articles are going to require quite a bit of heavy lifting, and the 3 Americans won't be particularly fun either. I'm planning on doing the Americans eventually, and have started fiddling with the British pre-dreadnought list. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
About a month later, and here we are:
This tally doesn't include 2 American and 1 British articles waiting on their GA reviews. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
In case this went unnoticed I thought I would post here, there is a pre-Featured Article Review for Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. The specific points that should be addressed are at the talk page I linked. Take a look if you have time, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There's only one week left to reach the 10th anniversary of Phase I. On the 7th it's the anniversary and after almost a whole decade working only:
so in total, only 11 articles are bellow GA which is great progress and many things have changed and evolved in those 10 years. Unless someone wants to reach that sweet goal of every article (with exaption of the lists) being GA then it's now the time to work on those 11 articles. ;) But seriously, great job for still being active and keeping this project alive for a decade. I know this project almost hasn't any bellow-GA articles so I don't mind if someone wants to create another phase for other types like cruisers, avisos, battlecruisers and many more. Hopefully you guys would still stick here in 2030. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
König-class battleship is set to run on the main page in a week, and given its age (and the fact that a bunch of sources have been published since it passed FAC more than a decade ago), I figured it needed a complete overhaul. I don't think we have time to do a WP:GOCE request, so I was hoping that some of the stalwarts here could give it a once-over to find my mistakes ;) Thanks in advance. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
SMS Derfflinger is another old FAC that is set to run in the near future. I've recently overhauled it - can any of you spare a minute to look it over? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Now that we can expect that OMT will complete its FT in a couple of years, my question is what do we call the equivalent projects for cruisers and destroyers? I can't think of any nicknames for cruisers off-hand, but destroyers were often called the greyhounds of the sea, or, less formally, tin cans. I figure that there are about 1,500 cruiser articles, depending on how we handle the transition from frigates to cruisers, and only about 5,000 destroyer articles to do, again depending on how we define them (include escort destroyers like the WW2-era Hunts, and what about destroyer escorts and their British equivalent sloops?). So enough to keep us busy for a couple of decades, despite the several hundred good articles that we've already improved.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: & @ Parsecboy: How about "Operation Deus Bellum"? Deus bellum means "war gods" in Latin and the war gods in Greek, Roman, etc... were always been seen violent and the sign of war and violence. Destroyer, on the other hand, have the noun "destroy" in it which is used as a crush or demolish in something. We can use this as a kind of symbolic sign like Titan in the Greek mythology. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if you saw it, but the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy topic has passed its Good Topic nomination. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand that sometimes the consistent statistics are not available on more obscure vessels, but on well documented battleship classes, should we use a consistent standard? I am surprised to the the King George V-class battleship (1939) represented at the "deep load" statistic which at first blush to our readers seems to overstate the size of the ships in relation to other combatants of the era. This is not the only example, but seems more glaring due to the prominent role these vessels had in several WWII battles, and their origins in adherence to the lapsing treaty policies.
To readers less aware of the nuances of statistics, as written our articles show the KGV class to be larger than the Bismarck Class. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)