Maybe now my talk page will load a little faster! ;-)Edit

Guess it's time to fill it back up? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, make it so, Number Two!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944)Edit

The article Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bréguet 960 VulturEdit

The article Bréguet 960 Vultur you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Bréguet 960 Vultur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

December 2020 Military History Writing ContestEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for placing first in the December 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest with 93 points from 10 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Military History Writers' Contest CupEdit

  The Military History Writers' Contest Cup  
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a grand total of 1,193 points from 231 articles throughout the year. An incredible output and an amazing effort. Congratulations! Zawed (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

👯Edit

Hello buddy, I left a reply to you on Talk:Gozo Phoenician shipwreck. Can you please review it? Thank you ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you see my comments from 8 January?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of RethymnoEdit

Hi Sturm, you reserved Talk:Battle of Rethymno/GA1 nearly four weeks ago. Any idea when its number might come up? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SNCASO TridentEdit

The article SNCASO Trident you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:SNCASO Trident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

USS DictatorEdit

Sturmvogel, I thought it was interesting that you removed the edit that "All woodwork on the USS Dictator was done by Ariel Patterson. You said it was trivial. However, I think it is not trivial because Ariel Patterson was a shipbuilder and had his onw sawmill giving him the reputation for his work as a shipbuilder and wood provider. Patterson and John Ericsson worked together on the steamer Ericson as well as the Dictator. Perhaps you just need a little more information to incorporate it into the article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but generally subcontractors aren't discussed in ship articles as they're far too numerous to be mentioned in the sources. At any rate, infoboxes are a supposed to be summary of the important facts about a ship, if you have sources supporting your addition, feel free to add them to the construction part of the main body. If you don't have any reliable sources, please don't bother.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

TFAEdit

Thank you today for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, about "an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for HMS Princess Royal (1911)! - DYK that my song of defiance which you had the courage to review, finally made it to GA but wasn't on DYK for Bach's birthday yesterday? - We miss Yoninah so much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks and congratulations to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Baade 152Edit

I noticed your adding the MILHIST tag - I'm not sure it fits, since it was only intended for civil use? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries. It happens to the worst of us. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

French destroyer Le TerribleEdit

I'll preface this that I'm not going to change it, I just wanted to explain why I thought "entered into" was better. The rest of the sentence describes things that people did to the ship (or things that happened to the ship): it was built, launched, commissioned, etc. It wouldn't make sense to say "it was entered service", but "it was entered into service" reads fine. I suppose it's minor... it's just how I read the sentence. HarryKernow (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside from being old-fashioned, my thinking was that it assigned agency to the ship itself, which is always a problem when writing a ship-focused article. Best to try and minimize that sort of thing as much as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. I didn't fully expand on my first thought, but I was under the impression that just "was ... entered"? assigned agency to the ship, while "was entered into" doesn't. HarryKernow (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 Military History Writers' ContestEdit

  The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest with 37 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

REFBEGIN/REFENDEdit

Please refrain from removing refbegin/refend markup from bibliographies and other "lists of works", and please reinstate those you have already removed. I understand you feel the use of this template is deleterious to those with poor eyesight, but that would be a fault with the template itself, not the usage of the template. Addressing any fault there should also improve the readability of the automatically generated references generated by reflist. Stgpcm (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What virtue does the template have other than to shrink the size of the text and to set the number or width of columns? And that last usually doesn't work on my large monitor, so what value does it have?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I have a large monitor, and it works just fine (and looks much better than without it). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It's been a bit of a puzzle for me as to why mine sometimes displays it and sometimes doesn't. I wish it worked more consistently on reflist as I'm always bothered by all the additional whitespace that is usually present with my short citation format. I'd be content if both reflist and refbegin didn't change the text size at all, but am a bit of a loss on how to push for that change to be adopted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The primary virtue of using refbegin is to mark the section as a list of works. Its secondary virtue is to display such lists in a consistent style. A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described at Template:Reflist#Font_size.
The automatic decision on whether to use multiple columns is - bizarrely - based in the number of entries in the list (20 or more).
On Skylon (spacecraft) the columns option should probably be set, to prevent a mismatch between the references and bibliography, but visual format isn't my thing. Stgpcm (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
A simple header of Bibliography, Sources, etc., which is required by MOS:APPENDIX, is a far more effective way to show the transition to a different section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
"A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described at Template:Reflist#Font_size." This sop to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY doesn't actually work on some browsers, unfortunately. But since the check box exists, no one seems to cares that it might not work for the readers who need it. I guess Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY is only there for people with disabilities who can afford the right computer for the options to work? The rest of us with bad eyes can suck it. BilCat (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your efforts on behalf of visually deficient readers such as myself. Your efforts are much appreciated, and perhaps someday will yield fruit. Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? You have the same problem with reflists I presume? It is unfortunate that the feature doesn't work as designed, but the solution isn't removing the logical markup, but fixing the issue in the template/browser. Have you raised the issue on the Template_talk:Refbegin page?
would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. As to raising the issue at that talk page, no, I haven't. From discussions I've had about other templates with the same, this appears to be a larger issue affecting my browser type. Those discussions went nowhere fast, so I stopped pursuing it. BilCat (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority of the refbegin/ends that I've been eliminating have no parameters set at all, and I've never even seen the parameter for setting text size. I can only conclude that editors think that it's some sort of requirement and/or they prefer the look of the reduced-size text. Which puzzles me because virtually every book bibliography I've ever seen uses the same font size for the main text and the bibliography. I understand that people are used to seeing citations and footnotes in a smaller text in most every book and journal, but so what? They do it to cram more information onto a printed page, but we're not paper and why reduce text size when it's not needed and penalizes editors like yourself. I truly do not understand the pushback that I've gotten on this issue, and not just from Stgpcm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I concur. As important as Accessibility issues are said to be to Wikipedia, I don't understand why the standard font sizes aren't the default, with the smaller sizes optional. We know different browsers can have issues, so why make it more difficult on the people who have difficulties instead of the other way around? Large fonts can be annoying, but most people with good eyesight can still read them comfortably, while the reverse is definitely not true. BilCat (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nord GerfautEdit

The article Nord Gerfaut you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Nord Gerfaut for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SNCASO SO.8000 NarvalEdit

The article SNCASO SO.8000 Narval you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)Edit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Talkback/letters to editorsEdit

Are letters to the editor (which is what the talkback column in Air Enthusiast is) really Reliable sources? Should they be added as references?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I should think so since they're approved by the editor. If he knew that they were incorrect, they wouldn't have been published. Most of the ones that I'm adding are corrections or clarifications, somethimes by well-established authorities like F. Gerdessen or Lennart Andersson. That said, I'm adding them so that editors know that they're there. If somebody's expanding the articles and doesn't think that they're useful, they can be moved to further reading or deleted entirely if superceded by more modern research, provided that they've actually been properly evaluated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I see you are now edit-warring to force the inclusion of these sources. This is unacceptable - you do not own the article and shouldn't be spamming dodgy sources into articles just to assert that ownership.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about this on the Reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Letters_to_the_editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Milliken's BendEdit

There's an ongoing AFD discussion that may result in a small amount of content from another article being merged into the aftermath section of the Milliken's Bend article, so it might be best to wait on the GA review until after the AFD is settled. Hog Farm Talk 19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, lemme know whenever that gets resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so that's all been resolved with the addition of two sentences into the article, so it's ready now. Hog Farm Talk 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sud-Ouest EspadonEdit

The article Sud-Ouest Espadon you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nord 2200Edit

The article Nord 2200 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Nord 2200 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletterEdit

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  •   Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  •   Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  •   Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  •   The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  •   Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  •   Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  •   Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  •   Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons linksEdit

Hi, could I ask that when creating new sections at the end of articles that you move the Commons link into it as that is where they are meant to be located. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to remember, but I usually only open a section at a time, so forgive me if I forget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

CSS ArkansasEdit

Thanks for doing some formatting cleanup on that one. I'm attempting a total rewrite of that article, and I'm not familiar enough with the process of writing ship articles to get the desired formatting down perfect. Hog Farm Talk 15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, she's always been on my to-do-list, but I've been deterred by my middling command of the sources on the overall campaign, although I did just buy Chatelaine's new Defending the Arteries of the Rebellion so I can work on more of the Confederate ironclads. Wanna split the work? I'll take on the ship specifics, you deal with the situation and we'll work together on the overlap between the two. I dunno if you've got access to Smith's book, but I do, and it's got all the latest research on the Arkansas. Gosnell's book is a classic, but I'm uncertain how well it holds up and I no longer have it at hand.
Take a look at any of my ship FACs to get an idea of how I typically like organize things. First a brief intro of the situation, then the details of the ship itself, followed by construction info and service. Given that she was built in a warzone, I'm not sure that that structure is actually appropriate for Arkansas. I can work with the article's current structure, though, if you think that that's preferable. Lemme know what you think, although I need to do some reviews that I've promised before I can start serious work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this sounds like a good idea for a collaboration. I've got access to quite a few books about the Vicksburg campaign. My use of Smith was simply from the rather limited Google books preview, although I think my father might have a copy of it. My opinion of Gosnell is mixed. Some parts of the book are Gosnell's own research, while parts of it are mainly narratives from primary sources. Unfortunately, the content about Arkansas is mainly based on the writings of Captain Brown and two of the ship's lieutenants. That's useful for some things, but I'd rather not have to use Gosnell quoting Brown as much as I've had to. As to structure, the wreck section doesn't warrant its own section. I've got a book about the submarine Hunley somewhere that talks a bit more about the wreck of Arkansas, but all you can really say is that a group of people looked for it, used some old writings to track it down, and found it under a levee. There's just not enough that can be said to support a separate section for it. Hog Farm Talk 16:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd suspect that we can rely more on Smith and, hopefully, Chatelain, than on Brown and Gosnell, as I'd expect the later writers to have reconciled the differing primary accounts as best they could. I think that the easiest thing to regarding the ship's actions is for you to write it according to what you've got and then I'll go through my sources and point out any discrepancies that we need to resolve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll probably get through it this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I've made it through the Miller, Barnhart, Gosnell, and DANFS. I'll need to go back and change where I used mdy dates instead of dmy dates, though. Looks like the infobox also needs a touchup and the lead probably needs some expansion. Hog Farm Talk 06:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully I'll flesh out the description today and make sure that it matches the infobox. Then onwards to Smith and Chatelaine!

Hog Farm Smith says that the army volunteers came from "three Missouri State Guard 1st Division artillery units: Company A, McDowell Battery (Capt. Drake McDowell, Capt. Samuel S. Harris); Company B, Richardson Artillery (Capt. E.G. Richardson); and Company C, McDonald’s Battery (Capt. Robert McDonald). Under Captains Harris and McDonald, with Lt. John D. Parsons of Co. C of the 5th Infantry Regiment and Lt. John L. Martin from Co. F of the 4th Infantry Regiment" citing Scott K. Williams and James McGhee, “Missourians Aboard the C.S.S. Arkansas,” Sons of Confederate Veterans, Missouri Division, Missouri Units, http:// www. missouridivision- scv.org/mounits/cssark.htm [accessed December 1, 2009]. It is over a decade old, so I haven't altered your text, but thought you should know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have McGhee with me when I pulled the Harris bit from Harris's Missouri Battery (1862). I've got limited access to McGhee's CSA unit monograph again, and he also mentions McDonald's Battery upon another check. However, neither Harris nor McDonald were MSG units at this point; they'd already entered Confederate service. Gosnell calls them cavalry, which is not supported by anything else and is contradicted by him quoting Brown calling them artillerymen. So it may just be best to refer to them as vague Missouri artillerymen. Hog Farm Talk 17:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arsenal VG 90Edit

The article Arsenal VG 90 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arsenal VG 90 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cruiser DupleixEdit

Photo file states: “This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.” Photographer died in 1930. Orpy15 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Irritatingly, that's not exactly how it works. French copyright of 70 years was still in effect when the US adopted the URAA in 1996, which extended the term to 95 years in the US. So you can use it in 2025, not until.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting! Then I will patiently wait until 2025. Orpy15 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 Military History Writers' ContestEdit

  The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest with 41 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

TFL notificationEdit

Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm just posting to let you know that List of battlecruisers of Russia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 2. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk page shortenEdit

Damn when did your talk page got shorten? I really believe I've missed this. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Turn of the year, turn a new leaf, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How isn't this world news? They had to broadcast this. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The siege of LeningradEdit

Have you seen the usage stats? Why cap something that sources mostly don't? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I will go ahead and fix those again if you have nothing to add. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Dude, it's a proper name. How it is any different than Battle of New Orleans or King of England? Proper names all. End of story.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Evidence shows that the Battle of New Orleans came to be treated as a proper name about a hundred years ago. The King of England evidence is not so simple, but does suggest more often capped than not. As I linked above for the siege of Leningrad, sources paint a very different picture in that case. And our MOS:CAPS says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. So we should use lowercase there. Your assertion that it's a proper name doesn't pass muster. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I see no value added to Wikipedia in your crusade here and would rather you devote your considerable energy to something more generally useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. You can't know how much that means to me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I dare say that your continuing efforts tell me exactly how much that means to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you object to here?Edit

It's the same style, with links to citations. Why do you want citations to be less functional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Because they use templates in cites, which I despise. Your preference for such links doesn't allow you to override WP:CITEVAR, so please stop changing things to your preferred style. This sort of behavior is exactly why CITEVAR was created. I don't mess with existing styles in the articles that I edit and you should learn to do the same, regardless of whatever improvements in functionality you feel are worthwhile.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
And your personal dislike of them does not overule reader-friendliness. RFC created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Go for it, but I doubt that you'll like the results.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing DriveEdit

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leduc 022Edit

The article Leduc 022 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Leduc 022 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SNCAC NC 1080Edit

The article SNCAC NC 1080 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:SNCAC NC 1080 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Two quick questions...Edit

1. Does a naval vessel's career begin before or after it is commissioned? 2. Is a vessel commissioned before or after it is constructed? Have a think about that. Pyrope 02:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's why I've entitled the section "construction and career" so it flows quite naturally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
But it doesn't. The active service of a naval vessel only starts after it has been handed over to the operator by the builder. The construction of a vessel is part and parcel of the shipbuilding process, following its specification and design, not its career. Hence that information rightly sits alongside the rest of the information about the physical object, not alongside information about the use to which that object was put. Pyrope 02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree. Troubles with labor and material shortages that often trouble shipbuilding programs have no part in the design and description section. I see the construction information as the beginning of a ship's career, not least because trials often reveal major problems before the ship can be handed over to the navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, let's start with the fact that the section you are calling "Design and description" is actually a description of its design and specification. Using the word "description" there is spurious. Right, now re-read your above comment again. You state yourself that the construction information covers everything that happens before it is handed over. That may include changes to the design as a result of changing specifications (very common in large vessels that take years to build) or items that are only brought to light in sea trials. Are you then going to start talking about these specification changes there, in the career section? Surely changes in the design are better discussed in a section dealing with its design? Fundamentally, the design and construction of a vessel is a single process involving a fair degree of back-and-forth and ongoing adjustment. The construction of a vessel isn't isn't beginning of its career, but the end of its build. Pyrope 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
See French battleship Brennus--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)cal structure.
What's your point? What you seem to be telling me is that a small group of editors (you?) have written a lot of articles with poor logical flow. Classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. That article also mixes fundamental details of design and construction of the vessel in the same section that contains detailed discussion about manouvers and deployments. These two do not sit comfortably together, and it still splits out details of the physical configuration of the vessel from the main section that covers this subject. Pyrope 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
A question for you, Pyrope: why would it make sense to arbitrarily split part of the historical narrative of the ship, then insert a technical description, and then resume the narrative? You seem to be asserting that narrative and technical aspects should not be mixed, unless you want to. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response, it's been a busy week. I am saying that the narrative and technical shouldn't be mixed, at the very least until the vessel has entered service. (Mid-career refits are up for another debate I guess, although I would tend to keep them in the technical section with only brief mention in the career section, but I digress.) Up until that point you are talking about the design and construction process (singular), not the vessel's career. For a human you wouldn't include their family history and schooling under a "career" heading, therefore why would you do the equivalent for a ship? Pyrope 23:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem, I certainly understand being busy. But what I don't understand is why you are arguing that the narrative shouldn't be interspersed, except for when you want to. The design process is quite distinct from the construction process; why should they be discussed together? Yes, designs are sometimes changed during construction, but they are also frequently changed over the course of a ship's career; what's so special about the commissioning date that anything before somehow doesn't count as narrative, but everything after does?
Your analogy is not apt; what you're actually arguing is to have a section about a person's physical characteristics (i.e., how tall they are, what color their hair and eyes are, etc.) that also includes their childhood and family history, and then a separate section for the details of their biography. In effect, you're arguing that because a person has not grown to maturity until their mid-20s, anything that happened in their lives before that should be considered part of their physical characteristics. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesu, meine FreudeEdit

 
wild garlic

Thank you for having improved an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a GA review! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You're more than welcome!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nord 1500 GriffonEdit

The article Nord 1500 Griffon you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Nord 1500 Griffon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

ExplainEdit

Why the term 'consort' is appropriate? Reply here and don't ping. BlueD954 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it implies equality. Escorts defend their charge and that wasn't Repulse's role in Force Z. The only escorts were a few destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

GA HelpEdit

Hi @Sturmvogel 66:, i don't know how to Review GA could you help pls or revert it. Thanks--Siirski (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? You accidentally started reviews?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66:, Yes i accidentally started reviews. --Siirski (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll get that fixed for you. I'm not exactly sure what to do, but I know someone who does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Many Thanks. - --Siirski (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

A favorEdit

I don't remember offhand that I've ever asked an individual to consider giving me a review at FAC, GAN or FLC, outside my general messages when doing a review (certainly not for years) ... but this is probably the right time to start, and you're a good person to start with :) Caveat: this is outside your (many) wheelhouses, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1, but very little of what needs doing is botany-related. I'm having a specific, temporary problem: the first few lists that need to be done, before anything else can be done, are longer than what FLC reviewers are used to ... and probably for that reason, I haven't received any reviews on this for 3 weeks, even though I've been doing a lot of reviews. Can you help? (Feel free to mention that this review was solicited). - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I'll try to get to this weekend, but feel free to remind me if I get distracted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I just got the start of a third review on this one, from TRM ... sometimes he supports when he's done (in which case I probably won't need a 4th support), sometimes not. If you'd like to wait and see what he does, that works for me ... or, if you've already put some time into this, feel free to keep going. FWIW, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (K–P)/archive1 also needs a support before I can nominate the Q–Z list. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, hold off. TRM isn't happy, so either I'll have to edit these two substantially, or else they won't need reviewing. If things change, I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was too ... well, too much. Too much going on here, and I'm not coping like I usually do. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I really am sorry, you didn't deserve that. One thing I've learned is that I can't bring my plant lists to review processes, I don't have enough wiggle-room left with them to allow reviewing to work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries, I was a bit surprised that you withdrew it so quickly, but that was certainly your prerogative. I certainly didn't take offense at any of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Good to hear, I'm a bit relieved. I realized that I nominated it more out of a sense of obligation than because I wanted to. Btw, I did come up with some edits today in response to your request for links for the professions ... it occurred to me I could mention the professions (the ones that occur in the table) in the intro and in a note at the top of the table and link them once, so that I wasn't forced to repeat the links over and over. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds good. I never thought that you'd need to link every mention because it's not a sortable table, just on the first mention. And only the more obscure professions, which is definitely a judgement call. For me, I'd expect that biologist would be common enough not to require linking, but botanist, mycologist, etc., would need links. But I have a habit of being generous with links and not worrying too much about sea of blue as long as the phrasing reads well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I don't know when, but if I can get a few more successful runs at FLC under my belt, I'll try again with the one we've been discussing ... feel free to watchlist it and weigh in or not, whatever you like. I'll do as much as I can on the points you raised before I re-nom it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Well ... after finally giving up and working on my next nom for a few days, some answers that had been eluding me finally came to me. Ain't that always the way. Nomination is now up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are so fixated on the word consortEdit

Change [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse] and HMS Prince of Wales (53) I'm fed up!

BlueD954 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How nice for you, but no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletterEdit

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  •   Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  •   Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  •   Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  •   Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Good ArticleEdit

I find it interesting how you've stated how an article's heading was too short in a GA nomination review, yet many of your articles you put forth for nomination are complete and total stubs with hardly any information at all and with and with single black and white image. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 71.54.16.170 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to blank the results of your failed GA nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Spanish ironclad VitoriaEdit

Having finally pinned down which Spanish warship rammed and sunk a British steamship on New Year's day 1874, I've added a history section to the Spanish ironclad Vitoria article, which you created. Are you able to expand it further? Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I should be able to add her construction information, but I'm uncertain about much past that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I've added a bit more info on the ship's activities during the Cantonal rebellion. Greene & Massignani may have further details, but it's no longer viewable in GB and I don't have a copy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I've got a copy. Thanks for the pointer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IncaseEdit

Hi Sturmvogel, I've seen some of your work. In case it is usefull for you, feel free to serve yourself around there. Best --Tom (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I might just do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese cruiser TakachihoEdit

The article Japanese cruiser Takachiho you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Takachiho for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 24 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arsenal VG 90Edit

The article Arsenal VG 90 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Arsenal VG 90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WinfieldEdit

Hi,

The discussion here leads me to think you might have access to Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1817-1863? I'm currently expanding an article on a naval officer who served through the middle of the nineteenth century but have access only to the previous two volumes of Winfield, leaving the narrative of service with some rather large holes. Would you be able to provide some details from 1817-1862 for me, or if that's not possible perhaps suggest where I might find alternative answers?

Many thanks,

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I do, who do you need info on?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Anything involving Henry Smith would be great, but I'm particularly struggling with his commands of HMS Ganges (1821) and HMS Prince Regent (1823). Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The book lacks an index for people, but for Ganges it says she was recommissioned on 1 March 1848 for the Mediterranean and for Prince Regent that Smith assumed command on 7 July 1854 and went to the Baltic in early 1855 (probably a typo for 1854) as she was paid off 16 December 1854 at Portsmouth and remained in Ordinary 1855–1860.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's really useful stuff. Could you provide the page numbers for Ganges and Prince Regent for future reference? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't thinking. Page 13 for Royal George and 28 for Ganges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Volume VI of Clowes appears to also have something on Henry Smith - pages 251, 277–279, 281, 284, 288, 296, 549. That might give you something you havn't for yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I've used that volume already but thank you for bringing p. 251 to my attention. For whatever reason I ignored it the first time around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Lion-class battlecruiser scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Lion-class battlecruiser article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 6, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 
Thank you today for the article, about "two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:FGTCEdit

Hey Sturm, I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, but as far as I can tell you haven't promoted or demoted a topic at WP:FGTC since December. Since then I've promoted at least 14 topics and its getting a bit much. I mean this sincerely, if the project doesn't interest you, please let Gamer and I know and I'd be happy—I'm sure Gamer would as well—to find a new delegate if need be. There's a lot of director/delegate attention needed for some of these time consuming promotions, and while there is a bot being worked on it may not be ready for some time. Pinging Gamer @GamerPro64:. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I've been meaning to bring this up. I wanted more delegates for a reason and I want to make sure about your availability to close nominations. GamerPro64 02:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been procrastinating about a lot of Wiki stuff lately. Lemme see what I can do today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Demoted the Jupiter topic although I think that I forgot to add the oldid to the action. I'll take care of that when I get back from class tomorrow night. I followed User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions, although I'm a bit confused by what he meant by step 7 as I thought that I'd done that as part of step 5 or 6. At any rate, check my work and let me know if I missed anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
From memory when I wrote that step 7 was update the main topic box itself. So if a new article was deemed a part of the topic's scope and the topic is demoted it should be added to main topic box itself usually with the   or   icon (and the count) or in the case of Jupiter there were not new articles in the scope but the icon for Jupiter was already updated by another editor [1]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arsenal VG 70Edit

The article Arsenal VG 70 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Arsenal VG 70 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Improving the General Dynamics Wikipedia articleEdit

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I noticed you're part of WP:Aviation and like military topics. I'm currently working on the General Dynamics Wikipedia article, there is room for improvement on a few sections. I have a COI with General Dynamics, so I will not edit the article myself but will present conceptual improvements on the talk page. To start, I rewrote the lead paragraph to clarify what the company does. Here is my proposed version. Any thoughts on this? --Chefmikesf (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You repeated the location of the company's HQ, but it looks fine other than that. I'm not very familiar with what's covered in the articles on defense companies, so I really can't tell what ought to be there that's missing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sturmvogel 66, Thanks for the feedback. I removed the second location and made some updates. The code was different from the post for some reason. My intention for the edits is to simplify the lead in case others wanted to add to it. Would you be open to making the update?--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but I'd like to check out the articles on a couple of the other major US defense companies. What you have so far is the bare bones of the lede, but I don't know what else should be there. I find ledes the hardest part of an article to write as it's hard to strike a balance between summarizing things and providing too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach. As I said, I'm open to additions to the Lead, the intention of this version is to clean it up, remove unnecessary content, and bring attention to this article that needs improvement. Best, Chefmikesf (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I've copied your lede over and cut the county from the location. I'd suggest reinstating the bit about the sale of the Fort Worth Division and would also suggest that you rework the bit about the ten companies to cover instead the four main business groups like shipbuilding, aerospace, etc. Go ahead and make those changes and I'll put the article on my watchlist to provide some oversight. Cite #3 needs to be wikified, by which I mean that it needs to be put into one of the various cite formats like cite news, cite web, etc. If you're not familiar with them let me know and I can give you some pointers. Once you're comfortable with doing that you can go ahead and do the same with any other cites that need to be properly formatted. Another thing you could do would be to provide a citation wherever a citation needed tag is located.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sturmvogel 66, Your suggestions make sense. I'll move this conversation to the General Dynamics talk page, then I'll ping you again once I have these updates drafted. Best --Chefmikesf (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese cruiser NaniwaEdit

The article Japanese cruiser Naniwa you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Naniwa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Artois (1794)/GA1Edit

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this GA review on May 16, and haven't returned to it since. I thought you might have forgotten about it. If you don't think you'll be able to do the review, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The same is true with Talk:Soviet frigate Svirepyy/GA1, which you opened two days earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Third Battle of WinchesterEdit

Sturmvogel 66 - Thank you for reviewing Third Battle of Winchester. The battle was complicated and the article is long, so I appreciate you making the effort and I glad it is someone with your background. TwoScars (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw some historical signs for some of the battles in Winchester, so I figure this will give me a good excuse to learn about at least one of the battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. Glad I learned to use "upright=" instead of "px". TwoScars (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Conway'sEdit

I see you are now changing the editors of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships to match your personal preference. Where is the consensus for this change? Or don't you need consensus?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Look more closely. I'm changing the cites to refer to the individual chapters and their authors as we should have been doing from the beginning. I'm using the info as given in the books for the editors. The real uncertainty is how to refer to Gardiner who is named as the editorial director over the individual editors. Since he's not listed as an editor per se, I'm chosing to ignore him in the cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
As you are WP:OWNING these articles, there is little point in arguing with you. As my presence on these articles is not wanted I will not waste any effort on improving them.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment, Nigel - it's pretty standard to cite the chapter authors of edited volumes, not just the editors. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
And I see you are also forcing use of the US edition of Conway's as well, thus prohibiting anyone who only has the UK edition from editing. Congratulations to you both on your efforts to drive me away.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you need to take a breath, no one is trying to drive anyone away. One has to pick an edition, and wouldn't you likewise be forcing me to use the UK edition if that's what you cite? It's no different from using a specific new or old edition (Burt's series on British battleships come to mind, as they have markedly different pagination between editions). Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I value your contributions, Nigel and don't understand why you're upset. My personal copies of Whitley's books are from the Naval Institute Press, but I'm perfectly content to use the UK edition since the pagination is identical. Feel free to change editions for any of the Conway's volumes, but be sure to change the ISBN as I've mixed up which edition uses which ISBN before with Conway's. And you can always update the existing UK edition citations with the new info on chapter name, author and page range yourself. There are still lots of British ships that I haven't updated yet and having somebody else help out would be very useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
If the editions are different then by changing the edition you are also invalidating all edits using the old edition. I trust that you will remove all edits made by these now forbidden editions.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
No, paginations for the US and UK editions of Conway's are identical, AFAIK. I was specifically referring to the ISBNs which Parsec and I had screwed up earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
You will be pleased to know that I have taken all Royal Navy ships off my watchlist as you have effectively barred me from editing them - this will allow you to force references to your own personal preference and delete everyone else's contributions without disruption. Congratulations - I hope the pair of you are proud of yourselves.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? No one has barred you from anything, and this is not "personal preference", it's standard for both main citation style guides used for historical topics (as I have pointed out on my talk page). If anything, the idea that we don't need to cite chapter authors is your personal preference. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I dunno why you're reacting in such a way to a minor change in referencing, but so be it. Hope to see you reconsider at some soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Image moveEdit

The infobox on the header section of the article Curtiss P-1 Hawk does not have a picture, but the sections have pictures of the aircraft and its variants.

How about putting a picture on the infobox? (might not presumably due to MoS)...

Thanks. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021Edit

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Military History Article Writing Contest - June 2021 first placeEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the June 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest, with three articles achieving 30 points. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not too many articles submitted if my three won!

WikiCup 2021 July newsletterEdit

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
  •   Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
  •   Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
  •   BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 17 reviews between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ACW vavies booksEdit

War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865 by James McPherson and Blue & Gray Navies: The Civil War Afloat by Spencer Tucker - are you familiar with either of these? Considering getting an ACW naval warfare book to read over the summer and wondering if either of these are worthwhile. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have the former, but haven't read it yet. It's gotten great reviews though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In appreciationEdit

  The Reviewers Award
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

List of plant family names with etymologiesEdit

Feel free to say no, I know you've got a lot on your plate, but I thought you might want to know that these lists are about to get much shorter and easier to review ... I'll be nomming List of plant family names with etymologies as soon as I get one more support in the current FLC nom. And on top of that, 3/4 of the rows with namesakes have already been reviewed in other FLCs, which might make it easier. I've been reviewing Milhist noms at FLC for a while now ... let me know if you've got any feedback on how I'm doing with those. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. This new list still has the feature that some rows with namesakes have a lot of information and some have very little ... there are ways around that now (such as dropping the extra information and linking to other lists that have that extra information), if this is something you still want to talk about. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

New problem ... List of plant genera named for people (K–P) is one of the "older nominations" now, without a second support. That hasn't happened before, for my noms. FLC is running a little slower (I'll assume that's just a summertime thing, unless it continues in the fall) ... but there may also be an etiquette problem here, that is, the usual reviewers might be waiting for you to at least say that you have no objections on the points you raised the last time around, before they take a look. I'm not sure if that's the case, and I'm not in a hurry, but it would be appreciated if you could stop in and say, at a minimum, "grumble grumble, not exactly what I was looking for but at least some effort has been made so I'm not going to oppose". (Or you could be more positive than that. And if you want to do a review, that would be great.) If you have time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, very helpful. Tim Riley just supported. If you still want to review, that's great, I look forward to it, but if you decide at some point that you're probably done, then please say that in the review ... I probably won't get any other reviewers stopping by if it looks like I've got 2 supports with another one likely. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll see if I can make some time later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Tank Encyclopedia reliabilityEdit

Hey, Sturmvogel. I just wanted to make a quick note about your comment on the StuG III article, where you said Tank Encyclopedia isn't really a reliable source.

Being in contact with the website's authors, I can tell you that's definitely not the case. Many are (former) tankers, historians, in contact with historians, authors of books (such as Craig Moore – his books can be found online), or generally well informed people when it comes to the subject. Articles published by the website are always based on books and archive documents, which are quoted on the articles' bottoms, like on Wikipedia. At least on the website's newer articles. The quality of their articles has improved very much over time.

There are some outdated articles that have warning signs about this at their beginning – some of them, which are especially outdated, have even been archived and cannot be found on the site's article list anymore. This shows they are very careful with their stuff and don't want to misinform anyone.

Overall, at the moment, TE is a much better source than WP when it comes to tank-related material. It is definitely not a fan-forum or anything like that.

Best regards, Lupishor (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll look at it more closely, but I'm concerned that it may not meet our standards for WP:RS. They may well be experts and very knowledgeable, but if they haven't been professionally published then that may not matter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Aight, thank you. Please ping me upon any further replies. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The book of Moore's I found was published by The History Press, which, while not a vanity press, isn't exactly on the same tier as an academic press. I wasn't able to find any reviews of the book, and add to that Moore is described as a retired cop, not a historian, and it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
As for the site, I can't find an "about" page that lists the contributors (Moore or anyone else), just a vague description of a team of 60+ individuals. We need to know who exactly is writing the material and what their credentials are to evaluate the site as a source.
From what I'm seeing, it looks like a hobbyist site. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be cited in our articles. And if articles at Tank Encyclopedia cite sources, we should be using those sources (that doesn't ring any Navweaps bells, does it, Sturm?) Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
At the bottom there's a gallery of clickable images that includes The Team. I scrolled through about half of the lengthy list and found one guy who's self-published multiple books, but most all of the other ones had no relevant professional publishing credentials. The individual articles seem to vary widely in quality, but to the site's credit most of the worst are labelled as needing further work. Some articles did have a list of sources, but not all.
I still need to replace the Navweaps refs with ones from Friedman in a lot of my articles, but only tend to do it for existing FAs and articles up for promotion. One of these days, they'll all be gone!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, how exactly should I interpret the reply? Would you say that their high-quality articles can count as reliable sources, but the worse ones (including those that cite no sources) cannot?

About the varying quality of articles - as I said in my initial comment, low quality ones are mostly older ones. Quality has improved over time, with the site getting more and more professional. As you said yourself, low quality (mostly older) articles are labeled as needing a rework - others have been archived entirely. Lupishor (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I don't think that the vast bulk of the contributors meet the criteria to be considered reliable sources, which means that the whole site cannot be used as a source. Your best bet is to use the sources mentioned and read them for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverts of ship agesEdit

The age of naval ships is of interest to many of our Wikipedia users, especially those interested in history; it puts a ship into a historical context. Your recent reverts of USS Hornet (CV-12) and J-, K- and N-class destroyer with the simple comment "Age unimportant" and "Nobody cares how long ago that was" may not be in the spirit of the Wikipedia community. Truthanado (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that many of our readers want to know the how long it's been since the ship was built, etc. If they were, I'd expect either requests for that info on talk pages or they'd be making the appropriate changes themselves. You are the only person that I've ever seen make those changes and I've never had a reader request a ship's age in over a decade of editing here and a very extensive watchlist of ship articles. I would suggest that you open a discussion over at WT:SHIPS to get a sense of how other editors feel about your proposed changes. Until then I suggest you stop making them and self-revert those that you might have made on articles which I don't watch until a consensus emerges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, there's no reason to do it. Ships aren't people, and they don't age in the same way. And even if someone wanted to know how old a given ship is, it's fairly basic arithmetic. We don't need to add yet more clutter to infoboxes, when they're typically already bloated with extraneous details. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)/GA1Edit

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this review back on June 27 and haven't yet returned to conduct the review. Please stop by as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The same is true of Talk:Battle of Hancock/GA1. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav minelayer ZmajEdit

G'day Sturm, I see you've added English to the sources, presumably to add detail about the destroyers sunk in the Dodecanese minefield? I was thinking she was ready for a possible co-nom for FAC? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, even though I'm a bit puzzled how Freivogel consistently mis-dated the incidents. I think it's pretty well ready for FAC as well, so go ahead and nominate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)Edit

The article Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

CSRC PickensEdit

My first attempt at creating a ship article from a redlink. (A USA revenue cutter taken into Confederate service that later saw minimal military action). Infobox likely needs work, but beyond that, do you think it's close to GAN-able? I've only done one ship GA (USS Indianola), so I'm not super used to judging these article quite yet. There's not much detail available it seems about this one's service. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

C and D-class destroyerEdit

Hey. I see you reverted my edit to C and D-class destroyer. On the points you made in the edit comment:

  • No abbreviated months: short months make sense in space-restricted areas, such as multiple columns with dates in them. It's an obvious way to help keep the columns from getting unnecessarily wide just to print "September". It also tends to make the columns less visibly variable based on the variegations of the data within them.
  • don't see a need for a separate column for refs: Many tables don't need a separate column for refs, but this one is absolutely a case where a Refs column makes sense, on several points:
    1. If you look at the reflist at the bottom after your edit or before I edited, reference number 18 (English p.51) has 33 instances of being referenced. It's a ridiculously long refcount for a single reference in an article like this. In my version, 10.
    2. You can think of a data table as just a collection of similarly-worded sentences, but without all the extra conjunctions, repeated verbs, etc. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't allow a sentence to stand like this in any article text:

      HMS Duncan was laid down on 25 September 1931[1] in HM Dockyards in Portsmouth[1], launched on 7 July 1932[1], completed being built on 31 March 1933[1], and was scrapped between 1945 and 1949.[2]

      Yes, I know it's a bit of a clunky sentence, but the point is that it is clearly citation overkill. If would be much better written as such:

      HMS Duncan was laid down on 25 September 1931 in HM Dockyards in Portsmouth, launched on 7 July 1932, completed being built on 31 March 1933, and was scrapped between 1945 and 1949.[1][3]

      And that is all that moving the refs to their own Refs column is doing. Especially when you consider that, without exception, every builder and date in the date columns for C-class ships came from English p. 45, and all the builders and dates in the D-class ships came from English p. 51. There is no need to repeat Eng-p45 or Eng-p51 for every builder and date cell in the table.
  • truly dislike the column for class: Unfortunately, the pseudo-header row subheaders for C- and D-class have to go. This is an accessibility thing. At MOS:COLHEAD, they show two examples to resolve the problem: either a separate column for the two different groups (as I edited the table); or two separate tables, one for C-class, one for D-class. I'm okay with either, so you can choose. I'll go either way, but the pre-existing method can't stay.  — sbb (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Late thought: Because the builder & date columns all have the same reference (for each class), a table note, footnote, reference attached to the caption (if the tables are split between C & D), or some other deduplication method, would make more sense than putting the same ref in a ref column, even more so than my edit. The unique refs per Fate field would then stay put, and then absolutely no need for a ref column.  — sbb (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I think splitting the table into one for each class is the best solution, with the appropriate refs in the column headers. What's up with your change to exclamation points to lead off each row? Doesn't seem to have done anything visible, although I'd have thought it would bold the entries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's subtle. From a strict accessibility viewpoint, the scope="row" is ignored if the cell isn't a table header cell (HTML <th>, designated by wikitext !, not |). The visible difference is always a slightly darker background. If the table has {{{1}}}, then row headers (specified by !scope="row"|) aren't bold and the cell is left-justified. If "plainrowheaders" is given for the table, then row headers are bold and centered, just like column headers.  — sbb (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Huh, I had no idea, but my command of table syntax is somewhat rudimentary. Now if I can just remember all this new code!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews and a questionEdit

I thought I'd take this opportunity to firstly thank you again for taking up the first three GAs I put up for review. Your comments on all of them were very helpful and I've attempted to implement your suggestions in my more recent edits as well. I don't have as much time to write up somewhat large articles right now and thought instead that I might attempt an A-class review for one of my existing GAs, perhaps HMS Caroline (1795). I was wondering if you might have any suggestions on how I might push to improve the article? Either way, thanks again for the assistance you've provided as I've slowly learned how to edit. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletterEdit

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants,   The Rambling Man and   Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being   Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are   Gog the Mild,   Lee Vilenski,   BennyOnTheLoose,   Amakuru and   Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles.   Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

GA reviewEdit

Hi, just a friendly ping for the review I've left at Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)/GA1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ship+Photo+ZMAJ.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Ship+Photo+ZMAJ.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soonEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Japanese destroyer Maki (1944)Edit

The article Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Maki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Yugoslav minelayer ZmajEdit

 Congratulations, Sturmvogel 66! The article you nominated, Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e English, p.51
  2. ^ English, p.53
  3. ^ English, p.53