Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

	This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Hi,

You uploaded File:French cruiser D'Assas.jpg, and File:French cruiser Nielly.jpg with a tag to not copy to Commons? What's the reason for this? The book is from the UK, which is 70 years pma. Per c:Category:Marius Bar, the author died in 1930 so they should be PD in the UK as well as USA. Am I missing something? -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "do not move to Commons" tag is automatically applied by {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:French_cruiser_D%27Assas.jpg&action=edit&section=2 the section]), which is the technically correct template to use here on en.wiki, since we only care about US copyright. And by the way, Bar was French (and routinely published his photos there, so France would be the country of origin, not that it matters in this case, since the term is the same). I don't upload images to Commons, as I detest their interface - you are free to move them over if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

May I ask how holed is preferred over hulled? As far as I'm aware the latter is better English for describing the situation. — Imperator ^Talk 04:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not so sure of that? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's a commonly used expression in this context. A simple Google Books search shows "holed" is preferred by a wide margin to "hulled" (which despite listing 3 pages of returns, only gave us 1 full and a partial page). And from a pragmatic standpoint, if the reader is not familiar with either version of the expression, "holed" is far easier to understand than "hulled". Parsecboy (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes Aoidh KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

Good morning,

I have been cleaning up the US articles of ships with no need for disambiguation and I've run into a bunch of articles that I can't move. For the most part I've sent them to uncontroversial technical requests to get them moved. However, there are entire classes that seem to have been "protected" against moving. Should I send them to requested moves or should I ask for a project level effort. I don't want to make it look like I'm picking on people, I just want to end the bickering. Llammakey (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llamma - the uncontroversial technical requests should be fine, since we're just bringing the titles into compliance with established naming policy. But I'm curious about the articles - are they actually move protected or do the redirects have edit-histories that prevent them being moved over? Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually protected. It just seems like an effort was made to prevent moves a long time ago by the original editor. They left Wikipedia in quite the huff in 2008 and it just seems to be that one editor's pages. It's kinda sad that we are just getting around to this 15 years later. I will continue with the technical requests then. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many things left still left undone, whether articles that haven't been created (or left stubs for years), or goofy stuff like this, which was also like that for 15 years. Someday we'll get there, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I come asking for advice again. The page USS Bellerophon (ARL-31) is the only ship of the name. However, the page USS Bellerophon is a disambiguation page full of Star Trek cruft. Now, since I got into it with Trekphiler a long time ago about that stuff I do not want to go near it, just in case. So I'm not sure where to bring this one, since it's not really a dab page. Thanks. 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about Trekphiler - he's been gone a long time (and I doubt he's ever coming back - last I see is a declined unblock in 2021). On to the matter at hand, I could see a case made to just leave it as it is, since the ship isn't particularly high traffic, so there isn't a lot of point to moving the dab to USS Bellerophon (disambiguation) so the ship can have the primary location. On the other hand, none of the other items actually have articles, so the dab page itself is contrary to MOS:DABNOLINK and MOS:DABRED (since I can't imagine there ever being an article on the fictional ships that would pass GNG. Probably what we ought to do is nominate it at WP:RFD, get it deleted, and then move the ship over it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

You have reverted my picture of the launch of SMS Schwaben. I don't know why as it came from Wikimedia Commons. It was originally published in Die Woche, a contemporary German illustrated newspaper. Have I failed to add some relevant information? TriodeFollower (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the file on Commons needs to be updated. Just because something is hosted on Commons isn't proof that it can be used freely. We need evidence that the photo is public domain in the US and the country of origin (in this case, Germany). That means we need the original publication, the author, and their date of death. The uploader clearly didn't take the photo, so that needs to be fixed, and it's certainly not licensed under CC0 1.0. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, in providing info about a Soviet ship, would you refer to the 'Communist Soviet Navy'? Or in the case of an Italian warship, the 'Fascist Italian Navy'? I don't think so.

Also, "which served with the Kriegsmarine" seems quaintly anthropomorphic. Despite centuries of picturesque nautical tradition, ships aren't sentient beings and don't "serve" in the manner of the prince of Wales's motto "Ich dien". They merely are part of a navy, shipping company, etc. (And for that matter, ships can't themselves be members of political parties.)

Suggest the link to Nazi Germany be moved to "German" in the phrase I used – "of the German Navy." Thanks. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There never was a country officially called "Nazi Germany." Until the end of the war, the name of the country officially was Das Deutsche Reich (The German Empire [or Realm]).

As an odd sidelight to this, for complicated legal reasons the railway in East Germany remained Die Reichsbahn until reunification in 1990. -- Sca (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that you had to link to Nazi Germany? That is the way Germany under the Nazi regime is most commonly referred to in English. What the country's WP:OFFICIALNAME was isn't relevant, unless it happens to coincide with common usage. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, your stated reasons for reverting my edit contains a direct contradiction of MOS:RETAIN, which states that the original English variation should be maintained unless there is sufficient reason to change it. You did not specify why you changed from the Torpedo bulkhead article's preexisting British English (preexisting, meaning prior to my edit) to American English. If someone else had changed the English variation prior to my edit, please specify so. Do not cite MOS:RETAIN back at me if I'm not the one who previously changed it – that comes across as insulting.
Also, as stated in my edit summary, piping the link to high-tensile steel was unnecessary per MOS:NOPIPE. Let the redirect to section stand, please don't try to fix links that are not broken; I see that you have undone this revert. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at who created the article, and what version of spelling I used. You might also look more closely at the version of the article you edited. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might have created it, but I had no reason to look into its creation history — I just fixed what I saw when I came across it for the first time. As I said, your edit summary came across to me as an insult even if it wasn't meant so. Please remember to maintain good faith with other editors. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you citing WP:RETAIN, and editing articles trying to enforce it, if you clearly don't understand how to apply it? As for the rest, you've been around far to long for any of that to fly. Stop being defensive, admit you screwed up, and move on with your life. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You might also look more closely at the version of the article you edited." Would you please be more specific? As I said, British English was what I saw in the article body. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look at the article as you edited it. I really should not have to spoon-feed you this. Again, you've been editing here for 14 years. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to my edit at the beginning of this discussion, and you can convey your message without the attitude or insults. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and did you look at it? I haven't insulted you once; you, on the other hand, repeatedly fling policy pages around when we both know I'm well aware. Do you know that some people find that behavior insulting? Perhaps you find my characterization that you don't understand RETAIN insulting, but that is a mere statement of fact. You didn't look closely enough at the article to see that it had "armour" once and armor six times. You also didn't demonstrate that you understand the whole point of RETAIN, which is to, um, "retain" the original version. You know, the reason why you might want to check the article history before you slap a template on it. Face facts: you were either ignorant of what RETAIN means in practice, or you were so careless in your edit that you didn't notice you were wrong. Either way, you made a mistake. It really is that simple. You made a mistake. Admit it or don't, but please stop wasting both of our time with this nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, please review this discussion. Whether they are right or wrong, this is not how an admin should behave. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You recently changed the link for Kiaochow Bay to Jiaozhou Bay Leased Territory in some Italian ship articles, but how is a reader who sees a reference to Kiachow Bay if he's reading older sources supposed to know what it refers to? He shouldn't have to make a separate search for Kiachow Bay, IMO. I usually use the name in use at the time, relying on redirects (even double redirects) to get the reader to the right place. Some people aren't satisfied by that and want the modern name used exclusively and I will add a parenthetical note giving the modern name, while retaining the original name. I'm fine if you change the redirect to the modern name if the original name is retained, or if you add a note as I outlined above, but your change is the worst of both worlds, IMO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel all that strongly about only using the one or both versions, but my attention was drawn to WP:PINYIN the other day, and per the MoS, pinyin is the default romanization, which little exception for Wade-Giles or any other romanization. The trouble is, there are multiple versions for a lot of these places, and saying "Jiaozhou (Kiautschou, Kiaochow, Kiao-Chow, or Kiauchau)" gets cumbersome. And as a practical matter, I'd wager that anyone reading books on Chinese history probably knows enough about about transliterations of Chinese that they won't be surprised by one or the other. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I suspect that the audience for ship articles isn't so familiar with Chinese place names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the case, but I also wonder how many readers are looking at old sources. I suspect the number of readers this would negatively affect is quite small - Marco Polo isn't exactly a high-traffic article ;) One additional point is that we aren't talking about places that actually changed names (a la Danzig/Gdansk), it's just a change of transliteration. Beijing was always Beijing (or at least as far back as the Ming anyway), it was us westerners who changed how we spelled it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, but I've seen a bunch of not-so-old sources on the Russo-Japanese War use the Wade-Giles spellings, sometimes with a Pinyin spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes Spicy Ale jrb Dbachmann DGG (deceased) Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes Jimbo Wales Oversighter changes Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

I have recently taken notice of and joined Operation Majestic Titan, and I noticed that the O-class battlecruiser is the only German battlecruiser that is not yet a featured article. I also noticed you have your talk page is linked through the table in Phase I. Is there any way I could help in bringing the article up from good to featured?

SEKDIS (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEKDIS - I saw you added your name to the project, welcome aboard. One of the main things the article needs is more context on the broader situation (in other words, place the ships in the context of German rearmament under the Nazi regime). For an example of what I'm talking about, see what I added to Plan Z last year from Tooze. This is a big project that would require specific sources, which is partly why I haven't done it myself as of yet.

I don't know what sources you have access to, but you said you have an interest in Spanish and US navies, so you might have an easier time getting something like Standard-type battleship up to GA as a first effort. The articles for all of the relevant ships have all been written, so you could crib references from them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you, I will try to do so. I do not have many sources for the O-class, but I do have some. Is there somewhere I should put them? SEKDIS (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a further reading section at the bottom for now - I don't know how much experience you have editing, but I can help with formatting if you need it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to be honest, I have not edited anything apart from correcting grammar and orthography up to now. I can try doing the further reading section or, if you prefer, I can just post it here for you to place. SEKDIS (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine by me, whichever you feel more comfortable doing. If you do want to add a section header, copy this over:

==Further reading==

And that will add the header. You can use citation templates like {{cite book}} to add references - they're pretty easy to fill in once you look at the available fields and determine which ones you need. Normally you'll use:

*{{cite book|last=|first=|title=|year=|location=|publisher=|isbn=}}

There are other fields you may need, like additional authors, if the title is in another language and should be translated also, editors for an edited volume, and a bunch more, but we can look at those if the sources you have need them. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you, I will do so.

SEKDIS (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)�[reply]

I have added a Further reading section for the O-class with what I already have, if you need me to look for more, please tell me. I have put the name of the book in both German and English, separated by "/¦\", please correct it as needed. There is also a URL, do I just leave the URL or do you need any specific format? I will start work on the Standard-type. I have also added the Kirov-class Soviet nuclear battlecruiser article to the OMT.

SEKDIS (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another editor fixed up the title translation for us, so that's good to go.

I know we discussed whether or not we should cover Kirov-class battlecruiser in WP:OMT - as I recall, the consensus at the time was that it didn't really fit the scope of the project, since they aren't battlecruisers by the traditional definition, and their label as such was more of a media thing (in the same way that the British press coined the "pocket battleship" phrase in reference to the Deutschland-class cruisers) Both cases are more or less simple propaganda. It's probably worth bringing up on the talk page to see if opinions have changed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, I did not see anything in the talk, I have asked and removed it until there is consensus.

SEKDIS (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was years ago and was archived a long time ago. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Good afternoon, at least the sources which have been provided in de:Camaeleon-Klasse spell it without an umlaut; I haven't found any WP:Commonname sources which spell it with an Umlaut in English sources, either. So I am really not sure if the article title with Umlaut is correct. It also prevents interlanguage links. On Commons it is to be found under commons:Category:Camaeleon class gunboat, too. Warrants at least a discussion, imho. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar. Hildebrand et. al., which is cited in the German and English articles, uses the umlaut. Gröner also routinely uses umlauts in the English translation (though I don't have the book at hand at the moment to confirm specifically that they spelled Camäleon that way, but given that they do use it for other ships, one would suspect that they used it here as well). I can check that later today. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming from the language side here (in the 19th century, printed media like books and newspaper didn't use umlauts as much as from the 1920s onwards (which means that in newspapers from the 1860s-1890s, you would almost certainly have found the spelling camaeleon; I also saw a discussion about the title used in the de-articles somewhere linked from the de-article history, but can't re-find it now, on short notice. Thanks for your efforts, and the spelling is not something I would fight over, but finding an "ä" in an english article title was at least unusual. And I like working interlanguage-links, btw. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine that was a limitation of typewriters of the day - but one can find examples of it being used even then, like the translation of the official German record of the Franco-Prussian War or the 1886 edition of Lloyds (in reference to the Austro-Hungarian brig of that time). It probably also doesn't help that these ships existed during a period when spellings were less standardized (as witnessed by the three spellings at de:Chamäleon).

But I've been writing articles on German warships (among others) for quite some time here, and it's quite common to use umlauts in English (but for example, eszetts are generally not used, in comparison). I can't recall that I've ever seen a "SMS Luetzow" in English, for instance. As for this ship, Sondhaus uses the umlaut. Thanks and you as well. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at Gröner and they indeed spell it Camäleon in the English translation. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million, the case rests :). Sorry for creating new work for you, but it seemed intuitively the right thing to do. Lectonar (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - not much around here that can't be undone easily enough, right? Happy editing. Parsecboy (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see in the article HMS Jed (1904) you've changed the original rendition of Tsingtao to the Pinyin Qingdao. However the source cited in the article uses the older rendition. Doesn't this make it an anachronism? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the distinction here is that the name of the city didn't ever change (like Danzig/Gdansk, Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad, etc.), the spelling only changed in English. Per WP:PINYIN, we should generally use that style of romanization unless the preponderance of current sources still use Wade-Giles (Sun Yat-sen being an obvious example). The city in question is universally referred to as Qingdao today, so there's no reason to use old spellings. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy snuff! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes Ingenuity Ddstretch Prodego Resolute

CheckUser changes Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Just to check, as you know these things; this is fairly well-documented as the USS Commodore Perry, but there's discussion on the talk page (from 2007-8) about a misidentification. Think it's correctly attributed? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the image the IP was questioning was File:Gunboat on the Pamunkey River, Va., 1864-65 (4167039208).jpg. It's fairly clear that it and your photo are different vessels - the one identified as Perry lacks the covered bridge and the shape of the windows are clearly different. Perry also appears to have straight sides, while the other one cants in at the ends of the superstructure.

DANFS identifies the vessel in your photo as Commodore Perry with the same photo here and there's what appears to be a contemporary sketch of Commodore Perry here that appears to align with the photo in question. And of course their file listing here labels it as Commodore Perry. The details I mentioned above align with the sketch.

On the other hand, they have the "Gunboat on the Pamunkey River" photo labeled as Commodore Morris (not Morse as the IP says), along with the contemporary sketch here, which again matches the ship in the photo. I can't tell you whether it's Morris or Morse, but the Met is clearly wrong to identify it as Perry. The IP also mentioned Commodore Barney, but as you can see from its contemporary sketch, it is significantly different from Perry and Morris.

Long story short, I don't think anyone is disputing that File:Commodore_Perry,_Pamunkey_River_MET_DP70753.jpg is actually Perry, and everything I've been able to dig up seems to confirm that identification. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Sorry to be a pain, just... don't want to risk miseducating people through images more than the inherent risk of all such things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 10:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all, I'm happy to help. Now if only we could get the Met to update their description, but it looks like Briochemore tried back in 2019 and they weren't budging. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left feedback on one of the images - don't know that I'll get a response, but we'll see, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Parsecboy! I get what you were doing (German aviso Grille), but something obviously went awry. Easier & quicker to revert to stable version than to locate where the fault lies... Cheers! Technopat (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for your message. Please note that I did not revert, but restored a stable version. --Technopat (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - can't figure out why the template isn't playing nicely with the bold text - I've been updating scores and scores of articles I've written to use the lang templates and haven't seen this before. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was this bit: (literally 'War Navy') - the last three apparently confused the system about which set of three apostrophes to pair for the bold text. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually gonna remove that bit (not sure that it's relevant on that particular page, at least not in the intro) but decided to leave it till later 'cos I didn't want to interfere with your troubleshooting. --Technopat (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it's also not a great translation - but there really isn't one. The thing I can't figure out is why that particular set of apostrophes worked fine before, but the template broke it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you're young enough to have too much blind faith in technology... Technopat (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'm not that young - the thing is, it is pretty basic coding. Something in the template must have confused the pairing of triple apostrophes (which is what I can't figure out, since it's the only thing that changed, but it works just fine everywhere else, like here, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Can't help... I'm still trying to catch up with the advances in typewriter technology: that golf ball innovation blew my mind! So getting to grips with even basic coding is waaaay down on my to-do list. Good luck! Technopat (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! After doing a bit of experimentation in my sandbox, I think the five apostrophes forced mediawiki to read those pairs together. From what I gather, it doesn't read the code left to right (which is what I had expected). The text works as intended if you leave all five apostrophes, with or without templates, but when you drop down to just bold text, it gets confused about how it pairs the sets, with or without templates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little late, but remember, in a pinch, <b> </b> is also accepted. Generally I find the problem tends to be a missing closure somewhere very distant, and the change causing the error correction to act differently. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I suspect the problem was "(literally '<nowiki/>''War Navy'''" - that's read as '[italic switch]War Navy[bold switch]. If you were trying to put War Navy in single quotes, the correct way is {{'}}''War Navy''{{'}}, escaping BOTH before and after. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that makes sense - and that's a good idea on the <b> </b> bit. Thanks Adam. Parsecboy (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

There's a few pages on Wikipedia, notably Hudson–Fulton Celebration claiming this is specifically of Justice at the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. Do you have any evidence this is true? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 05:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it turns out the LoC just lays out information in a really stupid way. It's the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. One shouldn't need check subject tags to see that. Also, I've partially restored it. I think I got most of the stuff that's visible without zooming in a lot already, except for the left bit of writing (I'm usually pretty happy to leave writing, but I do ask that people either put it on level or have it be something that doesn't look like it needs to be level like a signature. Maybe it's level to the horizon and I didn't need to, but it's intrusive so screw it, it's going. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 05:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it might amuse you to know that I had once taken a stab at restoring that image myself (never got anywhere with it, of course). I think I had talked with Durova for advice and played around with the image a bit, but got busy with grad school stuff, my first kid was born, and it got lost in the shuffle. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. That is not a great first image. The left hand side alone is ridiculous. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 11:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That probably had something to do with why I never finished it! Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always thought that a good first restoration was more on the lines of File:Andrew_George_Scott,_alias_Captain_Moonlite_-_Original.jpg - something which needs one technique (healing tool), not too often, but will teach you to use it, and to consider things like what size and hardness is best for each spot. Kinda wish I hadn't restored that one. But there's plenty like it, if you want to have a go sometime. I can keep an eye out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 11:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind - but I don't have as much time as I once did, unfortunately. Much of my editing used to be at work, in my old job, where I had a lot of down time. That's less the case in my current job. A lot of what I do these days is maintenance of existing articles, like my current (very slow) campaign to update stuff to comply with MOS:FOREIGN (like this), though I do still write articles from time to time - French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1877) is a relatively recent example. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped in a slightly better image. Double check it's not an obvious misidentification; if not, we're good, and I'll add it to the list to-do. [1] might be rather good for showing the keel. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 02:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's a good image - thanks, much appreciated! And that model photo would be nice to have. I tend to forget about Gallica (and the NHHC collection usually has at least one image of a given ship, so I stop looking). Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Model of the French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1877) - Original.jpg Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! (Though the Agence Rol template isn't working - I'd fix it, but I don't know what the right template is). Parsecboy (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good - I should tuck that away for future use. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update on Justice: Two days in, probably about 6-10 hours' work; still just the left edge is going to take at least another day, probably two. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 05:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it would take many days for me to cobble together 6-10 hours of work, and I imagine trying to cobble it together in 15 minutes here, half an hour there, would make it even slower going. Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to approach done. Took me about 15-20 hours for the left hand side, at 400% zoom. The rest is going a lot quicker. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely looks much, much better than when you started! It's funny, zooming in on the original version gives me flashbacks to when I tried to fiddle with it a decade ago! Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a before and after of the left side at the FPC. Really wish I had been there to advise back when you did it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the lead image on your user page... this is the original. I think I might need to at least do enough work to deal with it being, well, contrasted up so much that it looks much worse. You get weird edits sometimes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that's quite an impressive difference!

I imagine you see all kinds of things from people who don't quite know what they're doing. I'm a little embarrassed to show you this hatchet job (from the original)! Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not as bad as you'd think: It's hard to make an image like that look good, and while you could have curved it a little better, it's not a bad attempt.

A good rule of thumb for levels adjustments is, if it's an improvement on the original, and you've made it clear it is an edit, it's a good edit. If it isn't, go back to the original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 22:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, I suppose - and at least it's easier to make out than the original. I would like to eventually do some image work here and there, if I ever find the time to be able to do it - if that day ever comes, and we're both still around, I'll give you a ring! Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind, um... I did have a little bit of a go. It's never going to be a featured picture, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 22:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still much better than it was! Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, got inspired to write an article for The Bugle on the back of our talk here, so that's something Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 00:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'll have to check it out. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/August_2023/Op-ed if you want a preview. I keep adding to it, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 01:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I had read it earlier yesterday (I creeped in your edits ;) and there's more in there now. I did notice you've got two "Google it"s in there now ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangit. Thought I cut that. Probably did, then added it back while trying to balance it with the Signpost copy Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I do that kind of thing all the time. Just yesterday I had one of those at work (I write training and policy stuff for my department). There, at least I can blame it on server problems with the shared documents we use! Parsecboy (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nate ... hope you're well. I was looking around for a ship article to schedule at TFA for October, and Brandenburg-class battleship caught my eye ... I like the phrase "the Imperial German Navy's first ocean-going capital ships in nearly two decades" ... it gives the signficance right up front. I see you've been editing it recently, too. Is there anything left to do on this one before TFA? Would you rather have more time? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, thanks, I'm doing pretty well, I hope you are too. The article should be in pretty good shape - I've mainly just been fiddling with minor things for MoS stuff, so nothing else that needs to be done. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, and it's such a pleasure to read these ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! I'm particularly pleased with Brandenburg-class battleship, in fact - it was this edit that was my first foray into the German Imperial Navy, all the way back in 2007. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had no idea, I just liked the article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly come a long way since then! Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker has just nominated a ship for September at WP:TFAR. I see that 29 April 1894 will be the 130th anniversary of the date that all 4 ships were completed ... if that date works for you, I'll put both our names on the recommendation for that date at WP:TFAP. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, been a while, and thanks for the TFAR nomination. Does the April date for Nate's ships work for you too? - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was reading the wrong row ... the 130th anniversary of the completion of all 4 ships appears to be 14 October of next year. Does that date work for both of you? - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem for me at all - whatever makes life easier! Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Schichau (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Hey, I saw that you removed the templates at USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) and USS Bennington (CV-20). Before I send the templates to TfD as unused, is there a reason for this? Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I'm not Parsecboy, but I imagine it's because they were being used in place of regular article text. That template was created in 2005... it was a bit of a different time. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it - they were templates doing things templates shouldn't be doing. Parsecboy (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

		The Military history A-Class cross with Oak Leaves
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross with Oak Leaves for French battleship Charles Martel, French battleship Liberté, List of protected cruisers of France, SMS Yorck, and French battleship Justice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apols, I forgot to ping you. Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I happened to be on at the time and got the ping when they reverted my edits. I've got my eye on the articles, which may need to be locked if they persist in hopping IPs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the license? It's quite clearly listed as public domain by the Kiel archives. And why would a data-entry error for the archive (1934 vs. 1936) exclude a public domain image of a subject from being used on the page? Podlesok86 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that the Stadtarchiv released it under CC0 1.0? And what evidence do we have that the Stadtarchiv has the ability to license it?

As for the details of the image, it is literally impossible for Renard to have taken that photograph. Renard died in February 1934, and Admiral Graf Spee was not even launched until June of that year, let alone completed and in the condition in that photo. So clearly someone else took it. To return to the point above, did that person publish the image somewhere? Do we know who it was? Did they donate the image to the archive, or did a negative just come into their possession? Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SMS Sachsen NH 65749.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Parsecboy, I'm doing some pages about the first Krupp Ring Kanone used on ships. As I link to these guns in infoboxes, I see quite some resistance from users that want to hold on to the automatic conversion of inches and cm's in the infobox, e.g. at SMS Friedrich Carl (1867). I believe you created a reasonable solution at that page. However, in reality the caliber of the 21 cm RK L/22 was 20.92 cm, so it should be 8.2 in instead of 8.3 in. Not that important, but for the 24 cm RK, the real caliber was 23.54 cm. Therefore, I think it better to use the name of the gun and do calulation of the caliber in inches or cm by hand, based on the real caliber. Also, a substring like RK or SK in the name tells a lot about the actual power of built-up gun. If it's RK, it is first generation Ring Kanone and therefore not that powerful, because it could not handle that much explosive force.Grieg2 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complex issue, to be sure. I think this comes down to is the inherent tension between accuracy and providing a fairly high-level overview of a subject consistent with this being an encyclopedia. The challenge is always how do we present accurate information without getting too far down into the weeds? A case in point, I sometimes see figures given to the third decimal place (Norman Friedman tends to do this in his books on US warships, for instance), which is excessive for what we're trying to do here. So I'm not all that concerned about the difference between 8.2 and 8.3, or even 9.4 and 9.2. To the average reader, those differences are more or less meaningless, and if they are interested in further details about the guns, they can always click the link.

The other problem is, it's fairly common for guns (large and small) to have rounded nominal calibers, but different countries use different methods to determine what the nominal caliber is (and this can change over time). For example, .38 Special and .357 Magnum are identical in all but case length, but the former uses the rounded diameter of the case mouth to find its nominal caliber, while the latter uses the un-rounded bullet diameter as its nominal caliber. This problem already creates an apples to oranges comparison between ships of different navies (which I don't think should be encouraged because of the complexities, but readers will do it all the same), but introducing "in most articles we use the nominal caliber but in a few, we use the accurate bore diameter" only complicates things further.

I don't know that I'm necessarily right - you could make the case that I'm simply biased toward continuing what we've always done because we've always done it that way. It's probably something that should be discussed by a broader group (probably at WT:MILHIST). Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough reaction. You're right in that we should consider what we want to achieve with the infobox on the ship page. This is probably to give the reader a good indication of the power of the armament of a ship. However inaccurate, caliber and length go a long way to achieve this. Indeed, if this has a link to a page about the gun, the interested reader can get the details there.

The discussion is then about how to represent the link. Should it be caliber + length or the name with cm or in, or some combination? I also made pages like RML 16 cm No. 3, 28 cm A No. 1 gun, and RML 7-inch Armstrong Gun which all lack the length in their name. Ideally, the length in 'L/' should be added to the name as represented in the infobox like you did at SMS Friedrich Carl, allowing quick comparison. It is probably indeed a matter of discussing it in a broader group with consideration of some examples.Grieg2 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go start a thread at WT:MILHIST to see what others think about the issue. We probably need to adopt a standardized approach, so things aren't done haphazardly. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes Pppery Theleekycauldron Dwheeler G.A.S Royalbroil Ssd

CheckUser changes Bradv Oversighter changes Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

Can you explain this? I have been confused by the large number of tendentious FfD nominations from this user -- is this the result of some kind of dispute elsewhere?? jp×g 18:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look on their talk page a few threads up, about NHHC images, which I discussed with them last month. After abandoning that discussion, they've started getting rid of the templates, to no real improvement in how the image licenses are described. But I'm not inclined to revert them, given that nothing is really changing, and stopping them from tilting at windmills isn't exactly a good use of my time. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SMS Irene NH 48218.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 03:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have started two discussions on the reliability noticeboard on topics which you have previously discussed. If you would like to join, the discussions can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#SailboatData
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sailboat.Guide

-- Mike 🗩 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,the third reference link of the entry SS Silesia seems dead.Could you update it？（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Silesia）When I click the link,the site automatically goes to the official website instead of the document.Looking forward to your reply🙏🙏 Jack hema (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Parsec, but  Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed, much obliged. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes Hey man im josh Alex Bakharev CorbieVreccan Cyphoidbomb Davodd Hog Farm JamesR KnightLago Mark Ironie Nosebagbear (deceased) Rschen7754 Tamzin TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes DatGuy Ferret RickinBaltimore TonyBallioni Worm That Turned Oversighter changes RickinBaltimore TonyBallioni Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

I have two follow-up questions regarding your review. Can you have a look at the FAC? Peter ^Isotalo 04:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - thanks for the note. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the launch date for Russian ship Iagudiil (1843) please? Article currently states she was launced 4 days before she was laid down! Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - it was right in the body, but must have been a typo in the box. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for the heads up - the article should be in pretty good shape, but I ought to check through Robert's book that was published the year after the article went through FAC, as there may be a few details that can be added. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could try and improve the lead image. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b6918154h/f1.item.r=bouvet%20cuirass%C3%A9.zoom or - if you think it's the one visible from the deck of the other - https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b69299610.r=bouvet%20cuirass%C3%A9?rk=42918;4 ? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 18:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam, that would be great. I think the first one gives a better view of the ship (and the second one is Bouvet - I uploaded a much smaller version many years ago at File:Bouvet in the Dardanelles.png (which has a source that confirms the identity). Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

1) Firstly, you removed my link to the museum website, supposedly they do not cite sources there. But the question is why the historical sat is not a source in itself 2) Secondly, why the f**k, like dear Clodfelter, publishes only US COMBAT losses, but forgets about non-combat losses. Let us then, in the article about the Pacific War, also indicate only Japan’s combat losses. You yourself understand that only 93k Americans were killed in the Pacific War is f***ing nonsense Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil, thank you.

It is not ideal to compare combat losses against total losses, I agree; it's an apples to oranges comparison. But as you have been told repeatedly, and in several different venues, if you want to correct that, you need to find good, secondary sources to support the changes you want to make. Some museum website with unknown editorial oversight does not cut it.

Lastly, I would advise you to edit somewhere else. You are clearly too personally invested in proving your assumptions on this particular point, and from my perspective, you aren't able to edit in an unbiased manner. Showing up to people's talk pages, and rudely demanding things, is a good way to end up at WP:ANI - trust me, I've been editing here for more than 15 years, and I've seen plenty of people go down the path you seem to be on. If you want to stay active here, it's best you move on to another topic. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes lol, but writing only about US combat losses is very objective and not biased. Well, we’ll soon find out that the United States had no losses at all in the Pacific Ocean, at most one American Marine cut himself when opening a can of canned food in Okinawa) Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of unproductive, borderline-trolling comment that will get you hauled off to ANI at some point. Do not misinterpret the fact that you have not yet exhausted the community's patience for the idea that you will not in the future. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, it’s as if the authors of the article are trying their best to reduce US losses for the sake of a “pleasant” figure. And if we now discard all this formality about authoritative sources. I'm asking you personally. Don’t you yourself think the number of 93k dead Americans is underestimated? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you or I think; you've been told this repeatedly. The only thing that matters is what authoritative sources state. The fact that you think this is a mere "formality" demonstrates that you fundamentally misunderstand what we're doing here on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked in a private conversation what you think, but even here you managed to answer like a robot. And the fact that a historian indicates only COMBAT losses is no longer an authority. Well, it’s okay, I’m sure there are still caring users who will erase this nonsense about only 93k dead, and see more truthful numbers Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do you decide which publication is vanity and which is not? For example, it seems to me that it is vanity to indicate American losses only in battle, and forgetting about non-combat ones, thereby underestimating the real numbers. Oh, right, we have a historian who underestimates the number of US losses, authority, because he indicates “pleasant numbers” Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't decide anything - look up iUniverse - it's clearly a self-publishing organization, which is prohibited as per WP:SELFPUB. Frankly, you need to familiarize yourself with basic policies before you start editing contentious topics. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F*ck you 95.25.206.238 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]