User talk:Palmeira/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Palmeira. 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 |
Files missing description details
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)- Note to self: Perfect example of mindless "bot" as the information is in other blocks than "Author" for these government photos! Theo needs to go to the workshop for repair!
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lyndonia (1920), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudor style (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
|
.jpg){kind=link}
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leif J. Sverdrup may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USAT Don Esteban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Mactan (1898), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollandia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
See talk:South West Pacific theatre of World War II. So that you can see that I know something about the subject see also Talk:American-British-Dutch-Australian Command -- PBS (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Joint commands
The allied joint commands were not always as simple as the first appear on paper as inter-service and national politics often got in the way. One quote I particularly like is from Bill Slim about Vinegar Joe (you will find its context in the articel Northern Combat Area Command):
- "Stilwell, however bitterly resisted it... To watch Stilwell, when hard pressed, shift his opposition from one of the several strong-points he held by virtue of his numerous Allied, American and Chinese offices, to another was a lesson in mobile offensive-defence."
-- PBS (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. Still somewhat that way, even all through NATO's peak. It is interesting to watch the War Department/Navy Department alone, even as late in the war there was a growing sense of a single entity that became DoD (and there are fun and games still in there!). As for a true mess the whole thing about SEA Command and the "American centric" CBI with Stilwell and the China thing is perhaps the worst case unity of command violations. It is right here, lingering on if I'm not mistaken. Though not my main interest at the moment I've had reason to look at the "command" structure of pages here. I'd have to check to see how deep, but it looks as if there is an entire category tree of Allied commands and U.S. commands essentially going their own ways and that is really, really bad for an "encyclopedia"—perpetuating rivalry rather than noting and discussing it and its effects. Any thoughts on tackling that problem yourself as I suggested? Would make a good project for the military history people, if they aren't actually the cause. Palmeira (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Americans used the term Theater of Operations, but then divided their tasks in two. Administrative and operational. The CBI was an unusual theater because (in theory) it did not have an operational command structure as that chain of command went through SEAC. But the administrative structures were in place to make sure that the American troops were paid, fed, clothed and had access to all the goodies that American troops were provided with that other nations could only envy (eg nylon stockings). So I think that usually there needs to be several articles. A theatre article which describes operational command and the fighting. A command article, for the operational commands (for the details of such a command which are "undue weight" in a theatre article). And for most Allied WWII theatres a "Theater of Operations" article specifically about American Command and administration, (eg Mediterranean Theater of Operations), which if nothing else allows for an explanation of acronyms that may appear in third party reliable sources and allows for an explanation of the difference between administrative and operational commands in the US armed forces.
- I am not willing to get very involved in this part of Wikiepedia at the moment. I was involved years ago when there were only stubs or no article at all (XIV Army of the Burma campaign was well described as the Forgotten Army and that was as true on Wikipedia as elsewhere. One article I am particularly pleased to see develop from my stub is The Hump which is now as useful an HTML article as exists on the net about that subject. However at the moment I have given myself lots to do with cleaning up 1,000 of articles that contain public domain text and templates (eg {{EB1911}}), and when I get board of that (it is not very creative), of working on 17th century British articles (My sandboxes are stuffed with half written articles). -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much the same here. Only put some spare time "byproduct" of my own looking into ships and other bits of WW II history here for the most part. Palmeira (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Republic (AP-33), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lost Battalion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pensacola Convoy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS America (ID-3006) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- & Henrik Ljungström |date= |work=The Great Ocean Liners |publisher= |accessdate=6 July 2013}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMAS Westralia (F95) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Navy 1939-1942 | series =Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy | volume =2 |year=1968) |publisher=Australian War Memorial |location=Canberra |isbn= |page= |pages= |url=http://www.awm.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AHS Tasman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War Department (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMAS Westralia (F95), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SS City of Manchester (1851) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 2520of%2520Manchester&sailedKind=between&sailedMin=&sailedMax=&offset=1&pagesize=50 |title=None (List of ships named ''City of Manchester'' |author=Stephen P. Morse & Susan E. Swiggum |date= |work=
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SS Argentina (1929) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Navy 1939-1942 | series =Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy | volume =2 |year=1968) |publisher=Australian War Memorial |location=Canberra |isbn= |page= |pages= |url=http://www.awm.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Dale (DD-290), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War Department (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Empire Star
Re your additions to the List of Empire Ships, the first ship was not an Empire Ship and should be removed from the list. So that your research isn't wasted, Empire Star could be created as a shipindex page and the details transferred there. Feel free to create articles on any or all of the ships! Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Added a note to that effect. If you want to delete it go ahead, though I think that the list in one spot is more informative and less confusing to readers than spreading the thing around. Not that interested in any but the 1935 vessel and that only with respect to the 1940-42 days in Indo-Pacific and the Singapore/Java evacuation in particular. Palmeira (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MV Anshun (1930), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Koninklijke Paketvaart-Maatschappij may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Navy 1939-1942 | series =Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy | volume =2 |year=1968) |publisher=Australian War Memorial |location=Canberra |isbn= |page= |pages= |url=http://www.awm.
- Staff, U. S. Army |location=Washington, D. C. |isbn= |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate=|ref=harv}}}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SS Arthur M. Huddell may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tampa Shipbuilding Company may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- the Second Wolrd War the company built some commercial type hulls that became naval auxiliaries ({{USS|Lassen|AE-3|6}}, {{USS|Mauna Loa|AE-8|6}} as examples. One prewar ship, the [[Type C2 ship|C2
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shipwrecks in February 1942, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Katoomba (1913), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Tugboat Trabajador (1931)
 | On 30 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tugboat Trabajador (1931), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the tugboat Trabajador helped rescue fifty-two people from the British freighter Silver Hazel that was wrecked in San Bernardino Strait? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tugboat Trabajador (1931). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Carranca-vampiro.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The China Navigation Company may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SS West Cressey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- link and enter '''West Cressey''' for a list of known convoys in which the ship participated).]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in June 1942 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RMS Aquitania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army
Please see Talk:Philippine Commonwealth Army#Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- No talk page section about the reversion this user made on the article Philippines Campaign (1941–42) was found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is there now. This isn't quite real time communication, but I am trying.Palmeira (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Philippine Commonwealth Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- The '''Commonwealth Army of the Philippines''' (CAP) (official name '''''Hukbong Katihan ng Komonwelt ng Pilipinas''''' or '''''Hukbong Katihan ng
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
an award for you
|
The Philippine Barnstar of National Merit | |
| For your work on articles regarding the Philippines during World War II, specifically on the article about the USS Mactan, I hereby present to you this award. May it symbolize your commitment to make quality edits to articles regarding the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| this WikiAward was given to Palmeira by RightCowLeftCoast (talk) on 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
Discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Asian American
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Asian American. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 115ash at Asian American. Thank you. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Philippine Army Air Corps
- added a link pointing to Army War College
- Philippine Commonwealth Army
- added a link pointing to Army War College
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the improvements to the article! I'm working on the Salvage and Cleanup efforts [here] if you'd like to take a look or add info! Thank You again! Regards, Aloha27 talk 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
MacArthur's pressure and posturing
Hi @User:Palmeira
Thanks for the further info. I enjoyed the reading Jones (you supplied the link to). I acknowledge the problems you refer to. I had a cursory look at the Kokoda page a while back and noticed that it just seemed to loose puff. Perhaps I might have a look at it too but not for a bit. It is a much easier proposition since it can be dealt with as a series (in time and space) of battles. Have you read the note on the last quote by MacArthur in Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona#Air support. I refer to the prudence of MacArthur's statement. It was interesting that Jones refers to MacArthur giving away secrets. The reference is also useful in regard to MacArthur's manipulation of the press.
I regret that there may have been an earlier misunderstanding. I have never rejected any suggestions 'out of hand' and certainly not to censor the 'facts'. I have tried to give reasons and on many occasions, I have asked for further comment to establish a consensus. Unfortunately, there has been little response to these requests. For example, this very section was about getting feedback on whether this was an appropriate title for this section. I have received no feedback on this at all. You criticise the Draft as being Australian-centric. I have been conscious of maintaining a balance in the article so I am a little disappointed that I have perhaps, not achieved this. I would be very interested in knowing specific details that lead you to this conclusion. Having said that, I do not promise to address all or any of the matters you raise. It may be that such concerns are left for a consensus. I would note that a balanced coverage is not as simple as giving equal page space. I am quite certain that I would have included the material I have, regardless of whether it were about Australians or Americans. For example, the vignette of Carson's gun was a novel employment of artillery and was not included for nationalistic reasons but for relevance to the artillery section and the greater success of the 25-pounder employed this way. I did not recount the foray into flame warfare largely because of the lack of success and it did not have the same relevance to a thematic section. This is not to say that the actions were not brave. I did not go into great detail re Bottcher, because this was covered in detail on his page.
In the conduct of the battle, quite apart from repeated hasty attacks, I was amazed by the persistence with 25-pounders given the logistics of supplying them, that the 4.5 in howitzers weren't bought forward earlier and the apparent lack of use of air-fuel weapons, given the reported use of improvised air-fuel weapons on the Kokoda Track.
Thanks again, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
PS - You may wish to have a quick look at the lead to Operation Lilliput Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed! Good catch. Palmeira (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Operation ??
Hi, didn't quite get your meaning here: "Sea route opened: Operations. Problem here is first (great cover!) was named for the ship involved while second was not.Various formats or operation names, often all caps. Anyway, italics for name, particularly "Tramsik" (made up?), not exactly ships)". I appreciate the distinction between 'Karsik' and 'Tramsik', where one is also the name of a ship as well as the name of the operation. Regarding italics of operational names, there is no consistent usage on pages or clear guidance that I can see. Operation ??, Operation ?? or Operation ??. I have consistently used Operation ?? (or tried to), so at least the page is consistent - until the latest edit. I have no great preference for for any particular format (except personally, I do believe that italics should be applied in some way). This latest edit creates an inconsistency in formatting/style within the page. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Answer on Draft Talk page. Palmeira (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk Back
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Maguindanao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
SS Sierra Cordoba
The article needs a {{otherships}} for USS Callao. Search Plimsoll Ship Data for "Ruth Alexander" and you'll find plenty of material on dimension, engines, code letters, owners, operators, port of registry etc etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Lots of stuff, much of interest, particular "raider support days" out there. Just getting started on a cold, ugly day. Palmeira (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
New England Shipbuilding article
Dear User:Palmeira: Is there a way to say that without having "launched" awkwardly twice in the same sentence? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- You out there? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- The word "launched" appears in two consecutive sentences but "Ocean Wayfarer, Ocean Stranger, Ocean Traveller, Ocean Seaman, and Ocean Gallant, were launched" and "mass launching" is not using the same "word" twice. It does appear in the next sentence, but that is the way to describe things. While we may "launch" our canoe each week use here has a specific, ceremonial significance as seen in ship info boxes with "launch date" and is analogous to "birth" in shipbuilding (though I think perhaps delivery date might be a better landmark in both a business sense and when the ship even looks like a ship since most "launch" as only hulls). If your previous, and accurate description of the method, "floated," happens every time a ship undergoes maintenance in a dry dock. Your last change looks ok, though not precisely accurate in that I do not think they managed the towing within fifteen minutes. I'm pretty sure this was one of those wartime, morale building, stunts like building a Liberty in a day where the yard arranged and timed the ceremony for a newsworthy event and even demonstration to the enemy that they could no longer sink more than the Allies could build. Palmeira (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comprehensive explanation, User:Palmeira. I am indeed familiar with the nuances of "launched", but as you point out what was indeed a morale-building stunt (referenced as such at the Taft shipbuilding related article and elsewhere when mentioned) presents a challenge (as you depict, but not worth mincing over) as to when each ship was bouyant and what in epidemiological terms constitutes "launching" when done en masse as a publicity stunt rather than the unambiguous sliding down greased ways of a single traditional-style launch. The "15" minute figure being about as accurate as early "tape-measure" home runs, for the same reasons. A fantastic achievment regardless, however it ends up immortalized here and elsewhere.
- You do terrific work here at Wikipedia. I look forward to running into it again. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lots of fallout from main interests and good way to pass snow day! As for the stunt, those were still very dark days. Ships were still being lost at a fantastic rate and the Army planners were already desperate about how to get the numbers of troops to various fronts—a situation that got better over the next years but was still nearly desperate through VE Day. I think you took a look at the Liberty ship article. They did not want to, were close to panic when some early models cracked, but were faced with using those things as miserable troop ships or possibly postpone a 1944 invasion, something just unacceptable politically. 16 August 1942's stunt? Consider the day before at "GUADALCANAL—Marine rations are cut. First destroyer-transports arrive with supplies and aviation ground crews." "Look, we can launch 5 ships for our allies, one for ourselvs and two destroyers in one day from one company. Hear that Hitler?" is a pretty good stunt at such a time. Palmeira (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is not a day I am not boggled at what the U.S. achieved during WWII industrially. Every number is unthinkable...40,000 Sherman tanks, 10,000 of seemingly any aircraft you can name, 2,000 Liberty and Victory ships (combined)....
- Likewise, stunting or not, welding up and launching a Liberty ship in just over four days, as the Kaiser works in Richmond did.
- Given the rate U-boats were sinking tankers and freighters off the North Carolina coast in early 1942 alone the need for a massive shipbuilding program was obvious, both for cargo/transport and destroyers and escorts to guard the convoys. Capital ships? Sure, let's make a mess of them too, with even more aircraft carriers of every type. As I say, the mind boggles.
- It's great so much is being assembled here at Wikipedia, some before it gets lost forever with the passing of the generation responsible for it, much because if it doesn't get uploaded from service unit chronicles or culled from digitized old books "history" will be to today's and coming generations only what comes up in a Google search. Again, thanks for doing an important part. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
SS Sea Marlin
Excellent setting straight of SS Sea Marlin particulars. Please see Talk there. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Left hanging at Sea Marlin Talk page
Greetings User:Palmeira. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your post at the SS Sea Marlin Talk page here: [1] and acknowledge that I do intend to follow up where that thread was left off but have been pulled elsewise since and my hopes expressed there don't seem to be getting any closer.
I was able to make corrections/improvements at impacted pages but not go forward as desired, particularly with teasing out the riddle of a number of very heavily masted C3-S-A2 transports in the run of "Sea" prefixed hulls that included those converted to Attack Transports that were instead finished out as simple troop transports (which subset of the latter included the Sea Marlin, SS Sea Owl, and SS Sea Tarpon, among others).
When I can get back to it I'll give you a shout-out for guidance as needed. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, those were Ingalls and Western Pipe & Steel variants that were quite successful. If you look at those profiles at the link you will see they had a pretty standard cargo rig enabling them to operate even where ports were short on dockside rigs. Particularly as the shortage of troop transport hulls to get the required build up in the U.K. for a cross channel invasion in 1944 began to be a real worry (there were some agonized memos there) and even the "scary" Liberty types, with Congress asking if they were safe, being drafted nobody was going to "unrig" cargo ships otherwise suitable for packing men into available spaces. I have copies of drawings for billeting in Queen Elizabeth for 9,088 berths and 921 hammocks. They show berths and hammocks in some strange places! Palmeira (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
BTW I am enjoying the discussion with you. Thanks. My interest in the ship started as a kid collecting postage stamps. At various times I've mentioned the Four Chaplains to military chaplains that I've meet. With some disappointment I am surprised that many of them do not know the story. Also, I'm sponsoring a student at the Chaplaincy Institute in Berkeley. I'm going to make sure she knows the story. – S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- People today clueless about the story surprise me not at all. Some years ago a survey of college students found a fair number had Lee landing at Normandy and Eisenhower at Gettysburg (other than at his farm in retirement!).
- (copying this at the talk page for others that might be interested) The USAT tagging of ships that were not is fairly common even among people writing about some aspect of the ships but not specialist in those technical matters of WW II WSA/Army/Navy operation. For example, in making sure I could not find an authoritative Army counter to the MARAD vessel status entries I found one of the "Green Books" using USAT Dorchester. That was one covering the Medical services, written by a medical person who made an innocent mistake outside their particular area of expertise. That seems to be the case with some of the other references you are citing. They may be "authoritative" about the Chaplain Corps or even the events of the sinking, but have none and really no need for expertise in how oceangoing hulls were switched about under the umbrella authority of WSA, which was a true "Czar" when it came to commercial type ocean going ships. Even some of the USS, commissioned, merchant types were under "loan" or bareboat charter from WSA.
- David Grover, author of the 1987 Naval Institute Press book U.S. Army Ships and Watercraft of World War II in Introduction, page xiii notes:
- Designations of Army ships have never been as clear cut as have those of the Navy. In general, a ship owned by or under bareboat charter to the Army has been designated by the letters USAT, for U.S. Army Transport, preceding the ship's name. Ships allocated to the Army or under voyage or time charter retained their civilian designations as steamships or motorships.
Chapter I, page 3 repeats the FM 55-105 basics with:
- The formal designation, USAT, for U.S. Army Transport was officially reserved for those vessels owned by, or bareboat chartered to, the Army as opposed to those vessels that were allocated by the War Shipping Administration (WSA) or were under other forms of charter.
- References such as Grover, those MARAD "forms of agreement" and Army publications support Army levels of control in decreasing degree as:
- Owned (USAT) with civilian employees of the Transportation Corps.
- Bareboat chartered (USAT) with Transportation Corps responsible for and having control of everything except actual legal title.
- Army chartered (not USAT), those TCA agreements in the MARAD cards.
- Army chartered (not USAT) under time/voyage contracts that might last only the duration of a trip from port to unloading at another.
- Army's ship usage was complicated by Army's view of ships without naval "love" and as just a means of getting stuff across oceans (reflected in categorizing them as "floating equipment"!). Grover mentions Navy had a clear way of treating the ships it considered part of its fleet, even WSA allocated ones. Army ships, apart from "a few show-place USAT ships" did not stand out and "resembled other merchant vessels more than they did military vessels" and for Army allocated cargo ships with only one or two TC people "control of these vessels was not apparent, even to the knowledgeable observer"—and that is one reason even troops and passengers embarked sometimes were quite confused as to just what organization was in charge of the ship. At least the big troopers had extensive Army TC staffs, that "Transport Commander" who was not responsible for the ship, that dealt with those being transported. Sort of sad, but then no Army Major ever made General on the merits of outstanding duty aboard and Army ship. No line Admiral made that grade without! Thus Navy treasures its ship histories, particularly commissionings and command, and Army largely tossed its records when the ships became inactive. Palmeira (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Kronprinzessin Cecilie
Re this, I've fixed the typo. You now need to convert the original title into a shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now I've got another problem with a move of the ship index page. I moved the bare SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie>SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie (1906) forgetting that would leave a redirect that would conflict with an index page move sequence for the alternate spelling Kronprincessin Cecilie to the Kronprinzessin Cecilie used in references. Maybe you could delete that bare redirect so I can do the moves. Palmeira (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Tora Tora Tora
By your reasoning, the attacks on the Philippines, Thailand, & Singapore also fit a "see also", & that's equally nonsensical. The "connection" you're arguing makes sense only in explaining how Japan achieved surprise. That's dealt with on the page. The "see also" must have more than a notional connection. If we were talking, here, about the attacks on the Aleutians as part of Operation MI, I'd agree with you; we're not. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (BTW, I don't need you telling me about being "contentious", either.)
- My reasoning? If you want cites I can pull them from some very well respected military and historical sources. You are getting out on a limb in an attempt to disassociate Pearl Harbor from a coordinated and planned Pacific offensive that is pretty well documented. It is a fool's errand to attempt to make coordinated, pre-planned attacks taking place within just over seven hours reduced to a common time as not being associated. Since I have linked, with cites, those other attacks in the lead I'm not too concerned by the "See also" link, but as an aid to readers in understanding the full scope of events of 8 December (Tokyo time and everywhere except Hawaii that was the only attack east of the date line) the "See also" is a good second linking. Before you get argumentative, start deleting cited references and such, I suggest you do some real military history research on the events of those few hours. Pearl Harbor was one, the glaring blunder since it triggered all to come including two mushroom clouds, but just one of Japan's closely coordinated strike across the Pacific that morning. Palmeira (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, your reasoning. You're trying to make them part of the Pearl Harbor attack. They aren't. They are part of Japan's greater strategic goals for the Pacific War, which is, you'll notice, not the page in question. The simple fact they were co-ordinated does not mean they were connected. The goals of Hong Kong had damn all to do with Hawaii, beyond them all being carried out by IJN. I notice you aren't asking for P.I. or Thailand to be included; if you're right, why not? Because that is also obvious nonsense. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The page is locked down now but a few hints for you. The attack on Pearl was one part of Combined Fleet Operation Order No 1 so, yes, the Japanese made the connection you cannot seem to see. There is also an interesting 2009 piece Staff Ride Handbook for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: A Study of Defending America from Combat Studies Institute Press Fort Leavenworth, Kansas that makes the connection. Those are just ones of which I'd been previously unaware. A deep look at the military analysis and history should show you that Pearl Harbor was simply a key part of a set or air attacks on Allied targets that morning and, in the words of that Combat Studies piece "For the purposes of this paper, we will only concentrate on the Pearl Harbor portion of the plan." [p. 1] Your inability to "see a connection" is looking a bit like intentional blind eye. Palmeira (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, your reasoning. You're trying to make them part of the Pearl Harbor attack. They aren't. They are part of Japan's greater strategic goals for the Pacific War, which is, you'll notice, not the page in question. The simple fact they were co-ordinated does not mean they were connected. The goals of Hong Kong had damn all to do with Hawaii, beyond them all being carried out by IJN. I notice you aren't asking for P.I. or Thailand to be included; if you're right, why not? Because that is also obvious nonsense. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- My reasoning? If you want cites I can pull them from some very well respected military and historical sources. You are getting out on a limb in an attempt to disassociate Pearl Harbor from a coordinated and planned Pacific offensive that is pretty well documented. It is a fool's errand to attempt to make coordinated, pre-planned attacks taking place within just over seven hours reduced to a common time as not being associated. Since I have linked, with cites, those other attacks in the lead I'm not too concerned by the "See also" link, but as an aid to readers in understanding the full scope of events of 8 December (Tokyo time and everywhere except Hawaii that was the only attack east of the date line) the "See also" is a good second linking. Before you get argumentative, start deleting cited references and such, I suggest you do some real military history research on the events of those few hours. Pearl Harbor was one, the glaring blunder since it triggered all to come including two mushroom clouds, but just one of Japan's closely coordinated strike across the Pacific that morning. Palmeira (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
SS Portmar
Is the original port of registry for Centaurus known? Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I never found a citeable source on line and my easy access to the complete Lloyd's set is gone. About the only little fact I've found in checks the last day or so on that period is here noting "Green Star Steamship Corporation, 120 Broadway, New York, has purchased four 8,800-ton deadweight cargo carriers which are being built by the Northwest Steel Company" with a few mentions elsewhere with even less information. Palmeira (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SS Tivives (1911), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochefort and Verdon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Old dominion steamship company-LC-DIG-pga-01479.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old dominion steamship company-LC-DIG-pga-01479.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
George M. Cohan
Hi. I see that you keep adding a lot of information about a ship to the George M. Cohan article. I do not believe that the information is of significance to the Cohan article, but if you insist on adding it, at least pleasse keep it short and relevant to Cohan. Certainly, any mention of Hurley (from a source written by Hurley!) is irrelevant to Cohan's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is short and quite relevant to Cohen as it shows his was more interested in honoring his mother's father than himself. The bit is relevant, not meaningful without the head of the USSB (Hurley) going to the First Lady and then Cohen to make the change. Mess with this cited text any further and you are getting way too close to ownership. I will revert any additional watering down and get other eyes on this if necessary. Palmeira (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
  
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your efforts in improving the 4th Marine Regiment (United States) I hereby present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
/* USS Michigan/Wolverine citation needed */
In January 2015 you flagged the mention that the prow of the USS Michigan/Wolverine can be viewed inside the Erie Maritime Museum as needing a citation. I am new to Wikipedia and wondered what would satisfy your request. The picture right next to this section shows the prow inside the museum. Is that sufficient? Would a link to the web page listing exhibits at the museum satisfy your need? http://www.flagshipniagara.org/erie-maritime-museum/exhibits/uss-michiganwolverine/ I am not sure how to provide a citation. Thank you. EZLivin (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
"Power" v. "Propulsion" on COTOPAXI
Thanks for the clean up of COTOPAXI infobox items. I've gone back to my previous version regarding "Power" and "Propulsion" because those are different for steam ships. Main boilers, the basic ship power, usually provided steam to drive both main engines and auxiliaries that included winches, windlasses, generators and such with the rating in PSI. The main propulsion engines were rated in various measures of HP. Therefore "Ship Power" was the main boilers with recognition that many ships upon inspection of details in engineering articles had auxiliary boilers for emergency power or driving some auxiliaries and so on. We sort of get into that situation with later indirect electric drives where a main generator system provided power for both the electric drives and all other ship electrical systems. Even more complicated are some of electric generator sets that were still powered by steam. Palmeira (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)