Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan

Active discussions
 Main page Main talk Showcase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Portal 

Articles in need of reviewersEdit

Here's our current list of outstanding reviews in need of attention:

These GANs need a reviewer:

Related, but non-BB articles for reviewEdit

FACs, FLCs, and ACRs:


Updated. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So we've got another battleship in the project! Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Added one, removed two. Now to actually address comments!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
And another new article, until today a redirect. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Gotta keep the FAC train rolling. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • With Sachsen and Wurttemberg at GA now, the German topic is ready to be expanded. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Progress updateEdit

If anyone is curious, here's where we are now:

Unfortunately, those 9 British articles are going to require quite a bit of heavy lifting, and the 3 Americans won't be particularly fun either. I'm planning on doing the Americans eventually, and have started fiddling with the British pre-dreadnought list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see these old ships all receive a well covert articles. Hopefully you guys will finish this project one day.Pindanl (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

About a month later, and here we are:

  • 2 core
  • 8 British
  • 1 French
  • 6 lists.

This tally doesn't include 2 American and 1 British articles waiting on their GA reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to hear this project made a lot of progress this year alone, even though it hasn't ended yet. I have been counting from 1 January until now and we made 41 articles to GA, that's insane a lot. On 7 June 2020 the Phase I's project page will reach its 10th anniversary and it might be an awesome idea to make every article and list into at least a GA (or AL) before its 10th anniversary. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm in the process of updating the British pre-dreadnought list, and will probably tackle the American list after that, since both GTs are complete apart from the lists. I might have them both done by the end of the year, but we'll see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • And the Yanks are all now GAs. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't remind me - now I have to tackle another list! Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

List of battleships of the United StatesEdit

So with the American topic quickly reaching completion, I was looking at the list and am wondering what to do with USS Texas (1892) - we don't have a List of ironclad warships of the United States to send it to, and there's also the question of what sources call the ship - I doubt "ironclad" is the most common. Should we keep it in the list and be prepared to answer the inevitable question at FTC? Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I really think that, since Texas was officially a "second-class battleship" for part of her career, and is listed as such by DANFS, it belongs on the battleship list. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, we could build that list pretty easily using all the ACW ironclads, the Amphitrite-class monitors, etc., from the 1870s, plus Maine and Texas. Texas is really the last gasp of the "iconclad battleships" and was obsolete before she was completed as she wasn't a pre-dreadnought by any definition. We've excluded several Russian ships from the project for similar considerations and will have a similar disparity between the title of the list and its scope. Fortunately for me, there are enough Russian ironclad warships for their own list.
Most authors don't classify the 1870's-1880's ironclads separately from anything else as they're focused on more narrow typology with barbette, turret and central-battery ships, all of which reach back to the early days of ironclads. Changing the names of the lists to exclude these sorts of ships would make them long and awkward so I think that we're gonna have to explain their exclusion if that's what we decide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the cut-off point is clear, and in the case of the British has been established via "List of pre-dreadnought battleships", I'm OK with putting Texas and Maine in an "ironclads" list. They resemble some of the European transitional designs of the 1870s–1880s. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Any familiarity with this book?Edit

A new (and since-blocked) account went around adding this book to a bunch of articles in the project - does anyone know if it's worth including, either in further reading sections or as a direct source? The idea of a chapter on Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII is intriguing, but I don't know if the book is actually any good or not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the book, but I do know the author. Taylor wrote a very good history of Hood with lots of interesting stuff from interviews as well as technical data. Might be worth taking a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like there are a couple of copies in my state - will have to see if I can get it through ILL. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: - it came in yesterday and it looks like it'll be quite useful, particularly for some of the Scandinavian coastal defense ships. It has chapters on Iena and Slava that you may find useful (along with Hood and Nagato) - I can send you scans if you'd like. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I've got Iena and Slava scanned already - haven't gotten all the way through as of yet, but I'll send those over. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another effort to change she to itEdit

There's another effort to change she to it for ship articles underway. Discussion at WT:MOS if you haven't already offered your opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So what do we call the cruiser and destroyer projects?Edit

Now that we can expect that OMT will complete its FT in a couple of years, my question is what do we call the equivalent projects for cruisers and destroyers? I can't think of any nicknames for cruisers off-hand, but destroyers were often called the greyhounds of the sea, or, less formally, tin cans. I figure that there are about 1,500 cruiser articles, depending on how we handle the transition from frigates to cruisers, and only about 5,000 destroyer articles to do, again depending on how we define them (include escort destroyers like the WW2-era Hunts, and what about destroyer escorts and their British equivalent sloops?). So enough to keep us busy for a couple of decades, despite the several hundred good articles that we've already improved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we talked about this at one point, but I don't remember when or where. I'm not much of a name guy, so I'll leave that to someone else. Let's not forget about an ironclad topic (though we've made quite good progress on that already without a formal project - I got the German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and Ottoman topics done, and I know you've done more than a few Russian, French, and British ships, among others). One major problem with the destroyer topic is that they're still building them, so even if we got all of the existing ships to GA tomorrow, we've got, what, another 20 or so Arleigh Burkes slated for the next decade? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The easiest thing for both the cruisers and destroyers would be to limit them by period, so no overarching topic, I agree. Documentation of the WW2-era ships would be the easiest, although pre- and post-war careers would be problematic for many ships, as I've been discovering with my Italian DDs. As usual the ships of the minor navies would be the most troublesome.
I'd completely forgotten about the ironclads as I've done little work on them lately aside from a few Russian ones whenever Steve McLaughlin published new articles on them. That topic is reasonably complete, but the same can't be said for the British and Americans, although they're certainly doable. The French ships generally aren't well documented, especially in English, and those of the minor navies like Peru, Spain or Norway are even less so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
That's true - though I've been planning on finishing all of the Italian ones (which, in fairness, only includes 3 post-WWII ships), and the Germans helpfully stopped building cruisers after the 1930s ;) But for the USN, RN, etc., it would certainly be easier to do topics by types, since that's an easy way to limit the scope (and helpfully allows one to exclude guided missile cruisers, for instance).
The good thing about the American ironclads is DANFS, which should give us a fairly decent account of their careers (though I'll admit I haven't looked at any entries for the monitors to see what level of detail they have). For the British ships, I've noticed that Takvaal has been going through newspapers and such to add details (for instance, here). Hopefully, if we got the basic articles done with the general sources we have, material like what Takvaal's been adding will beef them up enough to be reasonably complete.
Check your email, by the way ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Even with the problems getting documentation on peace-time careers for RN and US ships, I have little doubt that we can get them through GA, it's getting them past that that I'm concerned about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: & @Parsecboy: How about "Operation Deus Bellum"? Deus bellum means "war gods" in Latin and the war gods in Greek, Roman, etc... were always been seen violent and the sign of war and violence. Destroyer, on the other hand, have the noun "destroy" in it which is used as a crush or demolish in something. We can use this as a kind of symbolic sign like Titan in the Greek mythology. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan".