Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

	This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark[edit]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for SMS Zähringen, "... served for over 40 years in three different navies (from Imperial, Weimar, and Nazi Germany), but had a fairly uneventful career nonetheless"! - What German battleships are for you are recent deaths of (mostly German) people for me, today Volker David Kirchner, - I didn't know him personally, but was there at a moving event described. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

... and today for König class battleship, of royal class ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

... and today for German battleship Tirpitz, the "last battleship built by Germany, Tirpitz saw relatively little action during her career, which consisted primarily of serving as a fleet in being in Norway during WWII"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best luck in the coming year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Back! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)::

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like we're now teammates. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]

		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 September 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest with 108 points from 10 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

GAN dispute[edit]

Hey mate, I'm in a dispute right now with one of my GAN reviews. They (neutral gender) claims that some of my comments are not related to the GA criteria. Like ISBN, translation of a title, adding the |language= template, using red links, using repeat links in the body, Removing Google Books's URL and the page ranges which all of them are in MOS. They claims that all of them are guidelines and aren't necessary for GAN because the GA criteria don't mention them. They also claims that GA criteria should follow instead of MOS because the criteria is a major rule instead of guidelines. The nominator says about the ISBN all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines to respect the scientific citation guidelines. However in the guidelines they state that It is important to provide linkage data such as the ISBN for books, and relevant database identifiers that link to papers or their bibliographic records. Such linkages facilitate the verification of sourced statements. Examples include the DOI for articles in many areas of science. Or about MOS look at this sentence it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation which says that we should respect MOS in the guidelines right? They says How many GA reviews have you done? Unless something has drastically changed, your interpretation of GA guidelines leaves me little choice but to request a second opinion review I thought "wow that's a little bit offended but okay". But I want to be sure whether I am wrong or not I've always reviewed ARCs and FACs so I have experience with those reviews but I am not experienced in GAN, so I could be wrong but I'm sure I'm not because Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says that guidelines should be respected and be like a de facto rule in Wikipedia. You have a lot of experience (at least 10 years) could you tell me whether I'm wrong or not? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing by now you know about the thread here that the nominator opened - I commented there since I figure it makes more sense to do it there, now that there are other editors who've gotten involved.

Personally, I tend not to pay much attention to the GA criteria when I review something at GAN - if I see a problem, I'll point it out, regardless of whether it's covered by the criteria. If the nominator wants to argue with me, fine, I may pass the article with those issues left unaddressed (though I can't remember the last time I've had that happen - most people just fix them). But my thought is, we should be fixing problems as they're identified, not passing things just because they meet the bare minimum standard. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Nate for your help hopefully it would be solved as fast as possible. But I won't continue in the near future and maybe I might drop it because I'm not really in the mood to continue it. Again thank you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• No problem at all - I can't certainly understand wanting to disengage from the review - I've had a few issues in the past as well. Sometimes these things can be resolved and sometimes they can't. Let's hope for the former, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

H-41 infobox[edit]

In your opinion, should the H-41 infobox be kept separate, or appended to the main H-class infobox? Steve7c8 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably keep it separate, so it's next to the text that discusses the H-41 design. That's how I've done boxes for museum ships. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 14 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

German aircraft carrier II[edit]

Hello

I made translation of German aircraft carrier II to pl.wiki. After article went to GA discussion on pl.wiki we found two things:

• another source that change some data (for example laid down in 1939, we started using German name Hilfsflugzeugträger II, that ship was hit by two bombs etc.) I don't feel good with my English to add this to GA on en.wiki but if you don't have this position, I can roughly translate it from pl to en.
• we have question: do you have source for such sentences The final proposal was completed by August 1942, but work on the conversion did not last long. By February 1943, the project had been abandoned, for several reasons. The shipyard suffered from a shortage of labor and materials, and the design staff had significant concerns over the arrangement of the engine system. The Allies also posed a serious threat, as Lorient was well within the range of Allied bombers? We are not sure if this is from Gröner or Gardiner & Chesneau or some other source, can you help us? PMG (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Good catch on finding Jordan & Moulin's book - it was published (2013) after I wrote the article (2012) - I'll update the page.
  • It's from Gröner. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019[edit]

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 look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop[edit]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for French battleship Brennus, SMS Roon, République-class battleship, SMS Preussischer Adler, and SMS Niobe. Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

D-class cruiser (Germany)[edit]

Hello I know that this is from 8 years ago, but do you have any source for However, eight guns were considered, had there been a quadruple turret available. The guns were supplied by a total of 900 shells, for a total of 150 rounds per gun. in D-class cruiser (Germany)? Everything else have reference at end of paragraph, but this information don't have reference. PMG (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's from Groener - it must have lost a reference during a rewrite from the original version. I'll fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work[edit]

Hello

I want to thank you for your work on German aircraft carrier II and D-class cruiser (Germany). I translated them to pl.wiki, and now after receiving Good Article status they are probably best internet source of information about this topic in Polish language. PMG (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PMG, it's always nice to hear that what I write has use! Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

Photos on commons only[edit]

I need to remove my photos of Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya from Commons to en.wiki because we can't figure out the Russian copyright status. I know that I've recently seen a photo of yours that was in a similar boat; can you point me to one of yours like that that I can use as a model for tags, etc. Are there any problems having the same photos (briefly) in the same place?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is one I moved to en.wiki because it was still under copyright in Germany - I think I renamed it to avoid having problems before the Commons version was deleted, but the system is smart enough to recognize duplicate files being uploaded here and on Commons. You can still upload it though, you'll just have to click the "ignore and upload anyway" button. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Brillant! Thanks. BTW, when I pulled Warship 2019 off the shelf today to respond to the latest round of comments on Brennus, I noticed that the editor listed an article on Béarn for the 2020 edition, so I'm not going to put much more work into translating my French book on the ship before that get published. I'll add the material that I've already translated, but you're just going to have to wait another six months or so before the topic will be complete :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That works, my part of the heavy lifting is done ;) Besides, it'll give us more time to feed articles through ACR and FAC, so maybe we'll hit 50% by then if we make a concerted effort. I'll probably send French battleship Bouvet to ACR next, and I've got the 6 Republiques and Libertes, not to mention the Dunkerque and Richelieu series waiting in the wings. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Francesco Caracciolo seems to have stalled out on reviewers, which might be a problem once Brennus is promoted as that's supposed to be our next joint nom. But even if there's a gap it won't be a big deal as we've both got stockpiles of FAC and ACR-ready articles on hand. Right now we're at 180 FA/FLs and need 260-odd to get to our 50%. Gonna be a while at 24-36 articles a year between us both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll be ok, especially since we both have a joint article with someone else that we can work in if need be. As for 50%, I was just talking about for the French topic ;) We've got 9 already FA (if you count Brennus and the list) and 3 more on deck that have passed ACR, so we'll just need another 12 to hit 50%, which I think is well-within reach. Though we'll need to have some more joint articles, so I maybe I'll take a stab at the Dantons soon. Parsecboy (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

<blush>Yeah, that should be reachable even if we dare to work on non-French ships ;-) There will also be an article on Charles Martel as well in the next Warship that we can do as a joint nom if you want.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That'll work - maybe Caresse has taken note of our progress and will churn out a few more in the series ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor noted that it's another in his series on the Flotte d'éschatillons, so I expect that we'll get the rest of them in future volumes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent - it's always nice to be able to take an article like Brennus that was, at best, a fairly mediocre GA and develop it into a respectable FA. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since Jordan & Caresse's book on the older BBs can be kinda spotty for the oldest ships 'cause they're trying to cover a bunch of ships that had more interesting careers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was fairly disappointed with what I was able to put together, service-history-wise, for Charles Martel, Carnot, and Massena. But hopefully with these articles coming up, we'll be able to produce some good stuff. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the October 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 55 points from seven articles. Congratulations, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker! I'm cruising to a comfortable second place finish for the year - I just can't match Sturm's output ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, truly prodigious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I had one month over the some where I came pretty close, but then he turned out a bunch of articles in the last day or two of the month - must be nice to be retired! Parsecboy (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019[edit]

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

HMS Intrepid (1747)[edit]

I wonder if you would be willing to lend me a hand. I got distracted from my normal work by HMS Intrepid (1747), and am trying to work it up for a GA nom. I need to add a bit more flesh to the Service section, which I'm happy doing, but I was hoping you might cast an expert eye over the Design and description and tidy/correct it as necessary. It is far from my specialist subject, and I may well have confused some quite basic concepts! Harrias ^talk 10:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can take a look, though I don't have sources on ships of that era (steam is more my thing!) so I can't look at that aspect of it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Thanks for your fixes and links. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You might find some useful material on her service in Clowes' History of the Royal Navy. And make sure to put your measurements in the infobox into feet and inches, not decimal feet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I read this and was scratching my head for a little bit "decimal feet, what the heck are they?" Then I actually looked at the infobox, and the penny dropped! Fixed that. Clowes looks very useful, thanks for the suggestion. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Something new every day ;-) For a general history of the RN in the age of sail, with a surprising amount of detail, I've always found Clowes a great place to start.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I've been going around and fixing old articles I left with decimal feet - and now I learn that the MoS advises that simply italicizing foreign words doesn't suffice - always sometime else to fix ;) Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms Depth of hold[edit]

Not sure what you were trying to accomplish. Hope this helped. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to get the redirect to point directly at the definition - the glossary needs to be updated with anchor links to each term (where appropriate), but that's a bit of an undertaking. I may get to it in chunks in the coming days. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kearsarge-class battleship[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kearsarge-class battleship 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

SMS Sperber[edit]

Hi! First off, thank you for your contributions to the project! As for SMS Sperber, I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I kindly ask that you please self-revert. Regarding the clause in question, that clause has two subjects and two verbs. Therefore, it is a compound sentence. While there are many grey areas in the English language regarding spelling, punctuation, etc., this is not one of them. It is universally accepted that compound sentences require a comma before the conjunction. Please kindly self-revert, and thank you for helping Wikipedia! GrammarDamner (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, frankly, you're wrong. When there are only two items in a series, no comma is necessary. You can strip out a lot of the unnecessary words in the sentence to find the basic structure. In this case, you can condense it like this: "Sperber was built at the Kaiserliche Werft (Imperial Dockyard) in Danzig; her keel was laid down in September 1887 and her completed hull was launched in August 1888." -> Sperber was built; [she] was laid down and her hull was launched.". You don't need a comma to separate the two actions. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! With all due respect, your explanation is incorrect. If there were only two actions, then a comma wouldn't be necessary. However, there are two actions and two subjects (her keel and her hull), making this a compound sentence which indeed requires a comma. Perhaps I didn't explain that clearly in my last message, for which I do sincerely apologize. I'll go ahead and correct that silly mistake for you. Please understand that I am not trying to change the content of this article. Naval history certainly isn't my area of expertise, haha! I'm simply trying to make the article grammatically correct. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, a comma isn't necessary for a compound sentence. You might consider the example "Jack ran and Jill skipped." No comma is necessary there, or in the article. Please stop trying to force your misinterpretation of grammar rules on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! I consider that example to be grammatically incorrect. You might want to refer to grammarly.com or any other English language resource for rules on when and when not to use commas. Anyway, we seem to be getting nowhere with our discussion, so I will start an RFC. To be honest, I've never done this before. How do I start an RFC? Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to simply ask an expert like @Dank:. As an aside, I would direct your attention to compound sentence, which includes this line: "The clauses are joined by a coordinating conjunction (with or without a comma)..." Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually Parsecboy is the expert here: he's pointed you to the right section of the right page. I don't know if grammarly.com's software always inserts a comma, but we don't consider people who are trying to sell you software to be reliable sources. It's fine without a comma per compound sentence, per practice at FAC, and per sites such as grammar.com. - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you to Dank, this link clarifies a lot of what I read and implicitly integrated (I am a non native speaker). I came here from the 3O, guess it can be closed now? Signimu (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Parsecboy, Dank, and Signimu, hi everyone! First off, let me say thank you to all of you for taking the time to help with this. I must apologize for my very late response. Things have been crazy IRL lately. Now I must say that I respectfully disagree with you. In fact, I'm not sure if any of you read the article at grammar.com. It specifically states that the comma can only be omitted if the independent clauses are "short". Both of the clauses in the example at grammar.com are 60% shorter than the clauses in SMS Sperber. Furthermore, the clauses in SMS Sperber both contain prepositional phrases, while the clauses in the example at grammar.com do not. While I'm sure that you could find dozens of online sources stating that a compound sentence does not require a comma, I can assure that all over the world, professors, writers, and editors of the English language are in near-universal agreement that a compound sentence does require a comma. In any case, I won't revert this article again. I hope one of you will, but I guess it's not the end of the world if a few Wikipedia articles have a few grammar mistakes (despite my not-so-subtle username, haha). And above all, thank you all for your contributions to Wikipedia! GrammarDamner (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Short" is a subjective word - to me, "her keel was laid down in September 1887 and her completed hull was launched in August 1888" is short. And given the fact that I've worked with Dan as a copyeditor of my writing for over a decade, I think I'll go with his advice over yours. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kearsarge-class battleship[edit]

The article Kearsarge-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kearsarge-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

100,000th edit![edit]

	100,000th edit award
	Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I was surprised to see the notification the other day - I didn't know it was set to do that. (Though technically, I hit 100,000 edits earlier this year - my account is one of the ones that have bugged edit counts - I'm actually at about [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/parsecboy 110,000 live edits). Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Iowa (BB-4)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Iowa (BB-4) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Iowa (BB-4)[edit]

The article USS Iowa (BB-4) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Iowa (BB-4) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German aviso Grille[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German aviso Grille 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

November 2019 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, it gives me great pleasure to award you the WikiChevrons, for coming first in the November 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 40 points from seven articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! It was kind of a slow month all around for me to have come in first with only 40 points! Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Scharnhorst wreck[edit]

The news caught my eye on the BBC News website. Out of interest, how many of the articles you have worked on are ships that have been sunk, and how many have been discovered? Or to put it another way, how common is this and how likely are they to find all of the squadron (I think that was one of the aims). The Mensun Bound article is a nice read. Will be interesting to see what else is published on this. Wikipedia has categories of shipwrecks, but does it have lists of ones that have been discovered (as opposed to lists of sinkings)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't really thought about how frequently they're discovered - in large part, it depends a lot on how deep the wrecks are (though the late Paul Allen's expeditions in the Pacific are currently taking up the challenge), since that directly affects how easy they are to find. The other major factor is how significant the ship was - things like battleships and aircraft carriers tend to be the types people go looking for, unless the wreck is related to a major battle (as is the case with Scharnhorst or PT-109, for instance). Other times, vessels are discovered by accident - Danton was discovered during a survey for a gas pipeline.

There are a lot of shipwreck lists, but I don't know that there are any specifically for wrecks that have been discovered. It might be worthwhile to put some together, or at least create a category for them. I'd think the lists of discoveries (though certainly not complete) of articles like Bound's would be a good place to start. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought and tips. May get to that at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and yup, I have so many irons in the fire at any given time, sometimes I think I'll never get to everything I want to do ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

On 6 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article SMS Scharnhorst, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 02:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Pretty neat - not too many of the articles I write end up in the news! Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Haha, I would say congrats. Never thought it would be in the news. Also happy Saint Nicholas Day mate. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, and you too! It's definitely not all that common. I had German cruiser Prinz Eugen turn up in the news last year after they finally pumped out all of the oil the ship had been slowly leaking since 1946 (although it wasn't featured at ITN), and before that, the last one that comes to mind was when they announced in 2009 that they had found the French battleship Danton (which I think was in ITN). There are probably a few others on articles I've written that I've forgotten (and several on some I haven't - like all of the ships RV Petrel has been finding lately). Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well speaking of ships I think we're arriving in a stalemate in the nominations this is not only at warships but also in other nominations. We're just getting started with the fun. I'd try to have a review with all the ARCs and FACs before 2020 but it feels like MILHIST dying in reviews. Does this happen every year around this period? :L Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, people get busy for a variety of reasons - there are lots of holidays, college students are probably cramming for finals/writing term papers, etc. Where's your review tally by now? Parsecboy (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well I think that's more an American thing because we have exams in January and June except if you have studies who have exams every two months. I was also a long time busy with my family, but hey family is important especially at the holiday season. Don't worry about my review tally it would run as normal after the holiday season. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, family is more important than anything else - certainly anything we do here as a hobby ;) Parsecboy (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nevada-class battleship[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nevada-class battleship 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification[edit]

Hi, Parsecboy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of protected cruisers of Germany – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 3, 2020. 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) 23:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Giants - the blurb looks fine to me. I've been going through older lists and knocking some of the dust off, but I'll take a look to make sure this one is up to date. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of FLs. There's something strange in the "Commissioned" of the ship of Freya. The list says 20 October 1898 while her article says 28 October 1898. Another example is Vineta who was laid down in 1895 (article) or in 1896 (list)? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Good catch, Freya is fixed (20 Oct. is correct), as is Vineta (1896 is right). Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Always will have a look into your old FAs. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Battleships of Japan[edit]

		The Naval Articles Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in totally inadequate recognition of the tremendous work you have put into bringing Battleships of Japan to Featured Topic status. To apply an overused word literally - awesome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! It's nice to see all the hard work we've put in over the last ten years or so finally come to fruition. We've got a list for the American ships to do, and I'm in the process of writing the one for British pre-dreadnoughts, which will finish those topics, and Sturm has one French ship to do, which will complete that one. So you might want to stock up on those for 2020 ;) Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I shall see if I can get a bulk discount for a large advance order of Naval Article Barnstars. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ha! The question is, where do I complain for not receiving my star for the German and Italian topics? Those were both before you started editing, so I'll cut you some slack ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

List of battleships of Japan - key[edit]

The problem with the way you have set it, for narrower resolutions (1000px or so) it creates a huge amount of whitespace, and puts the key *above* the TOC, which is madness. Since we are supposed to make articles present best for a wide variety of resolutions, I wonder if there is compromise / better way for both narrow and wide resolutions. (Hohum ^@) 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried an alternative arrangement, see what you think. (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that works alright - thanks Hohum. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019[edit]

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 look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

Io Saturnalia![edit]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth! I hope you have a nice holiday season too! Parsecboy (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Oregon (BB-3)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Oregon (BB-3) 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Oregon (BB-3)[edit]

The article USS Oregon (BB-3) 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:USS Oregon (BB-3) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bzuk! The same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nevada-class battleship[edit]

The article Nevada-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nevada-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German aviso Grille[edit]

The article German aviso Grille you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German aviso Grille for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad![edit]

Thanks Tom, the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is it too late to say "Merry Christmas"? I hope you had a great Christmas Day like I had in my 7-day break. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not at all! We had a pretty good holiday (though my younger daughter caught the flu late last week) - I'm glad you enjoyed yours as well. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• That doesn't sound great for her. :/ It's sadly the period of the year where people got some bug or disease in the cold dark months. Actually do you had a white Christmas? Because I have heard in the northern states it can easily snow every year. But here it's like rare to have a snowy Christmas, last snowy Christmas was in 2010 and since 1905 there were only 11 snowy Christmases. :/ But 2020 is coming too, any plans for next year? I want to finish my first GA in January after two months working in the GANs. But I think PM is on holiday or has a really busy week with their job I don't know. Who knows maybe I'll make it an A or I am just lazy to not do it next year. ;) But hey maybe one day I'll follow you guys though I don't believe my English would be that high as you guys. For now, I don't have really any plan for 2020, in 2019 I wanted to get my driving licence and now I got it, let's see what 2020 in petto has. I assume you'd try to finish MOT this year? :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• She did alright, actually - pretty subdued for a couple of days but she got over it relatively quickly. We didn't have any snow this year - it was oddly warm (in the 50s and 60s F, which is pretty warm for where we are) - but it has snowed twice this year already.
• Yeah, I think the goal is to finish in 2020 - the next thing I'm planning on tackling is the US list - maybe then I'll tackle standard-type battleship, since I wrote most of the relevant articles? And there are always old articles that need to be rewritten with new sources - chief on the list is Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII with this. And of course there are still plenty of German ships that need the Hildebrand treatment. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wait it was that warm over there too? We had a week here I think it was before Christmas we got 12–15°C which is almost the same temperatures you had. I know, I already guessed you are even working in the unknown wildly jungle of China. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• We had several warm days like that, but it's back to where it should be, with highs in the 30s and low 40s this week - it's supposed to snow today, but the high is 38°, so it won't stick. The kids have been waiting for sledding weather, but they'll have to wait a little while longer.
• Yup, I've had my eye on the Dingyuans for a long time (maybe because I like obscure ironclads, or maybe because they were built in Germany to a modified Sachsen design) - I had started working on the class article back in 2014 but never got around to finishing it. Another editor came along and got it to GA, but with the chapter in that book, I imagine we can get it to FA. Hopefully I can do the same with the Spanish battleships - I wrote those back in 2013 and always hoped to be able to do more with them. The class article is already A-class, and I imagine with a bit more work it could get to FA easily. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Oregon (BB-3)[edit]

The article USS Oregon (BB-3) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Oregon (BB-3) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chinese ironclad Dingyuan[edit]

The article Chinese ironclad Dingyuan 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:Chinese ironclad Dingyuan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. [[ Image:Time2wait.svg|20px]] 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, it gives me great pleasure to award you the WikiChevrons, for coming first in the December 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 63 points from eight articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And again. Well done. You are clearly on a roll. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! It helped that a lot of people were less active last month ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

Your GA nomination of Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan[edit]

The article Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan 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:Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Brasseys Annuals[edit]

Are these available online anywhere? There are quite a few articles (mostly Italian and French ships) with the same error as the one I attempted to resolve. I've a bit surprised that an annual is regarded as a journal but whatever. Lyndaship (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

They're on Google Books (like the 1911 volume), which is where I typically find them, and babel.hathitrust (for instance, the 1886 volume). The Italian ships are probably all my fault - when I wrote them several years ago, I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the templates. I've periodically gone around and fixed them, but there are still a lot out there. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few of them are on the Internet Archive for some, although personally I would treat them as books.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there too - I had forgotten since the site is blocked at work, so I've gotten in the habit of looking elsewhere. As for how to treat them, they're periodicals, and while we've come to expect monthly editions for most journals, there's no requirement for the frequency of publication (the first academic journal published, the Journal des sçavans, was an annual publication, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't pointing any fingers. I will fill out these citations as and when I come across them if I can Lyndaship (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the older volumes of Warship were annuals, strictly speaking, and came with ISSNs as well as ISBNs. The former seems to have been dropped from more recent volumes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan[edit]

The article Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Sachsen (1916)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Sachsen (1916) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

119th Field Artillery Regiment[edit]

Hey Parsecboy. Would you have time to read over 119th Field Artillery Regiment and let me know your thoughts? I noticed you are one of the most accomplished and respected editors on the military project page so your opinion would mean a lot. I recently expanded the 119th Artillery Regiment page from 13,538 bytes with inaccurate info and only two references and little inline citations to an article that now stands at 108,828 bytes with 67 references and comprehensive inline citations. It's my first Wikipedia article but I am not new to writing. I've carefully read over all the standards for good article, A class article and featured article and I feel it meets them all but before I place it up for review I was hoping for an independent look. Thanks. Boston1775 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look. Just from a quick glance, a couple of things jump out at me: you have forced image sizes for many of the images, which can cause problems for different displays. If you want to make an image larger, it's better to use the "|upright=1.x" parameter (see for instance the image here). You also have some harv errors, which are probably the result of slightly malformed citations somewhere. There's a script here you can install to highlight them. I'll take a more in-depth look later.

As some general advice, I'd go through each stage of review rather than jump straight to FAC - I've been writing here for more than a decade, and I still make silly mistakes that someone at GA or ACR catch, which makes FAC run much more smoothly. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

German aviso Grille[edit]

I'm going through the List of ship names of the Royal Navy at present using Colledge as my source removing those which are not HMS's but rather solely HMAS, HMCS etc. A problem is that he often lists ships which were captured or seized but never actually commissioned as a HMS such as the French ships in Operation Catapult - I'm happy to discount these when the nominal UK ownership was a week or so. However he does include Grille and it seems she was under British control for about a year. I favour that she was never commissioned but thought I would check with you first as you wrote most of the article Lyndaship (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The ship's postwar fate is fairly sketchy, unfortunately - Hildebrand et. al. confirm that British forces seized the ship at the end of the war, but do not provide any more details on that. There was apparently a sale in 1946, but even the details on that are murky. Does Colledge have anything useful to add to the article (even as a conflicting piece of information)? Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually it conflicts. States seized in August 1945 (not May) in Northern Germany (not Norway) and sold to G.Arida in September 1946. Given that he includes other ships which were only under British control and not commissioned I don't think she was ever a HMS. The only way I can think of to corroborate is a look at Navy lists. Not something I know how to go about Lyndaship (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That ought to be added to the article - do you have the page number? Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

p.146 isbn 1853675660. Lyndaship (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sufficiently RS for a GA but have you seen this? [1]. Also Lenton states RN in 1945 Lyndaship (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I hadn't come across that - I wonder if Hildebrand have entries on the oiler or the repair ship that might corroborate it (I'd doubt they include the depot ships) - I'll have to look later today. Thanks for giving me a lead. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This book references the incident - too bad I don't have the book or read Norwegian! Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Württemberg (1917)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Württemberg (1917) 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020[edit]

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 Jim Mattis

Your GA nomination of SMS Aspern[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Aspern 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

España-class battleship[edit]

Much appreciated, if you have any questions or I can clarify anything, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all is good so far. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Sachsen (1916)[edit]

The article SMS Sachsen (1916) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Sachsen (1916) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SMS Zähringen scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that SMS Zähringen has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 6 February 2020. Please check that 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/February 6, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

Good timing ;) - I miss Br'er, still. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Württemberg (1917)[edit]

The article SMS Württemberg (1917) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Württemberg (1917) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

January 2020 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, it gives me great pleasure to award you the Writer's Barnstar, for coming second in the January 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving a 47 points from 5 articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! Sturm blew us away this month ;) Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if Sturm ran a couple of socks, they could have spread the articles between them, and still been first, second and third! Harrias ^talk 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It pays to be retired - oh, to have the free time to put together 70 or 80 articles together in a month, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at 'em, boys. Just a 1- or 2-sentence lede, an infobox, description, and a couple of sentences about construction each. Lots of copy-pasting and grossly incomplete. But C-class because they're all fully cited. So not anywhere near as much work as y'all might think!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

True - but you keep taking all of the articles like that with performances like that (and that de-stubathon you won a few years ago)! Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure, somebody's gotta make sure that the poor neglected dears get a proper start on life. I mean, they're not just going to write themselves!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That's true. And damnit, I thought I might be able to do the same with at least some of the thousand or so Type VIIs and Type XIs, but it looks like somebody beat me to them (and all of the WWI U-boats!) a few years ago. Guess I'll have to find something else. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

And this is my problem - I started working on the Terrible-class ironclads, thinking I'd churn out articles along the lines of what you did with the destroyers and submarines, and instead I've spent the last three days trawling through Brassey's Annuals to turn out articles of relatively decent quality like Requin. This is not how you write 70+ articles in a month... Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - it occurs to me that you have Gille - does he have anything to add to the articles? I've never seen the book to know what level of detail he has. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Gille's very spotty, and sometimes disagrees with Jordan and his various collaborators. He's best with specs and sometimes gives a brief précis of a career, which is very annoying, but reasonable considering he's covering all the French ironclads in 160 pages. In this case, you're mostly out of luck as he's only got two pages on this class. I'll scan them and email them to you. Let me know if you need help with abbreviations and such.

Your best bet if you want to match all my C-class ships might be Imperial German or early British DDs. Plus there are a bunch of French and Italian subs that I left on the table. But I think that the winning strategy is to aim for C-class as you can do that just with a copy of Conways and leave the rest for later, or for someone else to complete. DANFS ought to be good enough for you to get US subs, early cruisers and DDs to B class which would be more points for not much more work, if you want to try that route, although some might already have stubs or starts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll let you know if I need help. Hopefully there'll be a nugget or two I can glean.

I think my actual problem is I'm too invested in finishing an article when I start it - I fully intended to skip to the rest of the French ironclads that still lack articles (or are the minimal stubs you created long ago), but then started having too much fun digging through Brassey for whatever material I could find. On the other hand, now I've got 4 articles that should be enough for GA, and the class article will be easy enough to finish for a fifth. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought as much; you prefer going deep while I also like going wide. I think that I've been affected by adding all the cites from the WI issues that I've been buying of late and getting annoyed because there aren't any articles to attach them to, which means that I have to leave a note for myself to handle whenever I have time. So even an overgrown start is good enough, mainly because it can be expanded later, and I'll have something to hang my cite on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day[edit]

• Hey mate I just wanna say Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you will have a great day with you and your lover. BTW I will be back Sunday just let you know for the GAN. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, you too! Enjoy your weekend :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oh thanks mate. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

König-class battleship[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 1, 2020. 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 1, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk)

Thanks for the heads up - this is one of several older FAs that have been on the back-burner for a while now - I'll update it with more recent sources over the next couple of days. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent page moves[edit]

You recently moved quite a few amusement park article pages, including Floorless Coaster and Wing Coaster. These are controversial moves, because the pages are actually written about a model from Bolliger & Mabillard, and therefore should be capitalized. Please double-check your work here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No, they're about classes of roller coasters, not specific rides; per MOS:CAPS, they should not be capitalized. Lots of companies feel the need to overcapitalize to make their products stand out; that does not mean they're proper nouns. You will note that Bolliger & Mabillard is not the only company to produce rides of these types. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The article content at each article in question, however, is written about the specific model name from B&M. The cited sources are also focused on these specific models. If there is a general roller coaster class as you claim, then the sources that support such claims need to be cited in the articles, and they need to be rewritten/updated. Otherwise, the name you've moved them too can be considered WP:OR.

In addition, speedy moves should only be done when uncontroversial or unlikely to be challenged. Clearly that's not the case here. I advise you undo the moves and begin a broad discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A few things:

WP:OR has nothing to do with it, and even if it did, two of the articles already mention other companies' products, which demonstrates we're talking about a concept, not a specific model. You might want to familiarize yourself with MOS:CAP#Titles of works and MOS:TM. Here's an analogy: let's say that Tesla decided to refer to its vehicles as Electric Cars. Should we capitalize the Electric car article because Tesla is the largest single electric car producer (and probably the most well-known)?

That's a rather odd interpretation of WP:BOLD. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:RM#TR, but that's not what I did.

I'll not be doing that. Whatever WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at that project is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether we should follow the MoS or not. If you want to try to justify why these articles need an exemption, you are free to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured I'm quite familiar with policies and guidelines. I'm actually referring to bullet #2 at WP:RM#CM. If it's potentially controversial, the Requested Move template should be used to discuss.

I don't want to get into the weeds here with your electric car analogy, but I will say it doesn't really apply for several reasons. Let's pick on Wing Coasters. The term didn't appear until B&M released their model with that title, and if you find a source that says otherwise, I'd certainly take it into consideration. Electric cars existed long before Tesla, over 100 years before actually. If Tesla introduced an "Electric Car" model, the primary topic would remain electric car, but an article focusing on the Tesla model could exist at something like Electric Car (Tesla) per WP:DISAMBIG. What you've done in this scenario is take an article about a manufacturer's model and transformed it into a general category of roller coaster that isn't backed up by reliable sources.

In order for the move to be justified, the article would need to be reorganized and written from the right perspective, discussing the various manufacturer models from the beginning. Most importantly, sources would be needed that discuss the so-called "wing coaster" category. Only then could the page move be justified. Doing a drive-by move without doing the work is somewhat disingenious, especially if you're willing to defend it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

After spending some time researching wing coasters, looks like there are quite a few sources that do discuss the model in general terms as a classification. Although I still disagree the page move should have come first, I'll spend some time on the articles to make the moves work out in the end. If I come across one that doesn't exist as a classification in sources, I'll undo the move and start an RM discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, the RM template should be used instead of the technical requests section. There is nothing on that page that suggests it places any restrictions on WP:BOLD; I know, I worked at RM for quite some time and helped to write the page.

You missed the point - to explain a bit more fully, in my analogy, Tesla would be referring to the Model S as an "Electric Car" in all of their publications, much the same as Bolliger & Mabillard refer to Gatekeeper as a "Wing Coaster". In this case, "electric car" and "wing coaster" are both classes of objects; classes are not We write article titles in sentence case unless there's a reason not to (that's more than simple marketing nonsense). Along with the other pages I've directed you to, there's WP:NCCAPS, which has a helpful "in a nutshell" template at the top you ought to read. Parsecboy (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, I understand the general point you're making. It just so happens that the model name the company has selected for their product is the same as the class name. Class names are not proper names, but product names usually are (e.g. Corvette, Silly Putty, Galaxy S10, Xbox One, etc.). If the article is written about the object class, then I would wholeheartedly agree with the move, but here the articles are focused on the particular product. Even the infobox is dedicated to the model/product name. If B&M had chosen to call their product something else like "Wing Rider", we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The other issue is the class needs to be commonly established in reliable sources. You could argue that products like Kleenex, Yo-Yo, Frisbee, etc., have all been generalized over time and are now very common English terms that don't require capitalization. But those items have existed for decades, unlike the Wing Coaster which is relatively recent.

I won't fight it at this point, but I still believe some if not all of the moves have put the cart before the horse (class status before including reliable sources that back it), and the articles in question still need to be updated/rewritten to reflect that we are primarily talking about the class and not a specific product from a specific company. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You can see an early example of the changes needed in this diff. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, since the roller coasters in a given category aren't a single product, any more than the Galaxy S10 and the S9 are together a single product (which is to say, B&M aren't installing the exact same roller coaster at every park they build them - much as while the S10 and S9 are both cell phones, they are not identical designs). Comparing these coasters to cars and phones aren't exactly apples to apples anyway, since the former are built individually while the latter are built by the thousands or millions. A better comparison might be skyscrapers, since they are built individually, even though a given architect might incorporate the same structural features in their designs. And much like "skyscraper", "wing coaster" is only a general category of roller coasters, despite what B&M's marketing states (unless you're talking about the specific wing coaster rather imaginatively named Wing Coaster built in China in 2018). If you look elsewhere, you'll see no one else does. Those are literally the first eight hits when you type "wing coaster" into Google News, skipping articles from the same outlets on the assumption that they're redundant. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

B&M's Wing Coaster model is not the same as Intamin's Wing Rider Coaster and Wing Coaster designs. When you focus on the design, which includes components, capabilities, and the overall technology behind the design, it is justifiable to have an article dedicated to that subject when there's enough coverage. That's exactly what this article was. Saying that the layout is different between each installation doesn't mean the technology behind it is. The S10 and S9 are separate designs, and therefore have separate articles, regardless if they technically fall into the same class of cell phone. Again, if B&M had named their specific model "Sidewinder", you would simply have two articles: one that covers all wing coasters and one that covers the Sidewinder specifically. The sources you brought up are referring to the "wing coaster" class in general terms. There are other sources that refer to the B&M model specifically and use capitalization when doing so – Amusement Today, CoasterForce, Wired, ParkWorld, Blooloop. Amusement Today is probably the most prominent example.

I don't think we're landing on the same wavelength here. Regardless, I've already stated that I will continue modifying the articles so that it's not confusing to readers when they land there. Perhaps this discussion has run its course, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about the impact of the change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

All of this discussion should have taken place prior to the move. I undid the Dive Coaster move as it is a proper name, and all of the coasters listed are Dive Coasters from B&M. Unless you can present a more convincing argument — other than two pages that mistakenly refer to an S&S 4-D coaster as a wing coaster — I will likely undo all of these page moves.—JlACEer (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll remind you to read WP:BOLD and the MoS/policy pages linked above. Frankly, you're wrong, it doesn't matter one bit if it's a "proper name" as used by the manufacturer. But I don't care enough to waste any more of my time on this. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The more I've thought about it, the more I agree with the move at wing coaster. If we're at a non-B&M article that mentions "wing coaster" in general terms, it's preferable to have an article we can link to that discusses them in general terms. If at some point the coverage there gets to be extensive, we can fork the B&M model into its own article, but I don't see that happening anytime soon (and it may never). I'm on the fence with floorless coaster. There's technically one other manufacturer that's developed one, but it's never entered production. We'd need to take a closer look at how reputable sources are handling it.

For Dive Coaster, I'm leaning in favor of undoing the move as well. Each has a somewhat unique layout, but there is only one type from one manufacturer. The term only exists as B&M has defined it, which is the name of a product line they offer to customers. A good analogy is the EliteBook product line from HP (you could pick any of their product lines). Any number of EliteBooks can come in different configurations – different CPUs, different amounts of RAM, different GPU, etc. – but they all belong to the same line of products. Very similar to Dive Coaster, despite the generic-sounding name. We may not agree here, and perhaps it needs further discussion should Parsecboy want to pursue it, but that can happen at the article's talk page if needed. My final 2¢! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Zenta[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Zenta 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020[edit]

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 looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Caïman[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Caïman 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Indomptable[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Indomptable 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 Gatoclass -- Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you respond to my request at this GAN please? I would like to get it wrapped up today if possible. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get the ping - I replied there. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, of course you wouldn't - I didn't sign it! My apologies for the oversight. I've now made a couple of additional tweaks to try and come up with a wording we can both agree on - would you mind taking another look at it please? Sorry about the hurry - this GA is my last chance to stay alive in the Wikicup, and as I don't know if you'll be available tomorrow, I'd like to get this wrapped up now before I log off for the evening if at all possible. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me. I'll be around today and tomorrow during the day (Eastern time US). Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. I will just give the article the once-over again tomorrow to make sure I didn't miss anything, and then hopefully wrap it up :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Terrible[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Terrible 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 Gatoclass -- Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for Liberté-class battleship, Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, French battleship Bouvet, SMS Gneisenau, and List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Indomptable[edit]

The article French ironclad Indomptable you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Indomptable for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gatoclass -- Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Terrible[edit]

The article French ironclad Terrible you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Terrible for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gatoclass -- Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Caïman[edit]

The article French ironclad Caïman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Caïman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Aspern[edit]

The article SMS Aspern you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Aspern for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020[edit]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

February 2020 Military History Writers' Contest[edit]

		The WikiChevrons
		For placing first in the WikiProject Military history monthly article writing contest for February 2020, with 79 points from seven articles, I hereby award you these WikiChevrons on behalf of the project. Nice job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker! Parsecboy (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Amiral Baudin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Amiral Baudin 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Requin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Requin 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Requin[edit]

The article French ironclad Requin 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:French ironclad Requin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Formidable[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Formidable 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

German battleship Tirpitz scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the German battleship Tirpitz article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 1, 2020. 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/April 1, 2020, 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 in recent years, 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? 09:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I'll take a look at the article and see what if anything needs to be updated. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Requin[edit]

The article French ironclad Requin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Requin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Amiral Baudin[edit]

The article French ironclad Amiral Baudin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Amiral Baudin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Formidable[edit]

The article French ironclad Formidable 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:French ironclad Formidable for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Formidable[edit]

The article French ironclad Formidable you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Formidable for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting rollbacker rights[edit]

Hey there! I noticed you were recently active so I wanted to personally ask if I could please be granted Rollback so I can fully use Huggle and be more effective with vandalism in general. I have made a request on the appropriate page as well if you would like easy access to the links etc. Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that - thanks for helping take care of vandalism. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Now to see how long I go before I accidentally rollback a good edit. Thepenguin9 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I did one just a week ago - it happens! I actually removed rollback from my phone account because I did it so frequently on a touchscreen. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Furieux[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Furieux 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terrible-class ironclad[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Terrible-class ironclad 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terrible-class ironclad[edit]

The article Terrible-class ironclad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Terrible-class ironclad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of L293D -- L293D (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification – April 2020[edit]

Hi, Parsecboy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of battleships of France – 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 3. 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) 00:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Giants! I'll take a look at the blurb. Parsecboy (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Amiral Duperré[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Amiral Duperré 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Furieux[edit]

The article French ironclad Furieux 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:French ironclad Furieux for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Furieux[edit]

The article French ironclad Furieux you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Furieux for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020[edit]

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

Your GA nomination of SMS Zenta[edit]

The article SMS Zenta you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Zenta for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 22[edit]

A tag has been placed on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 22 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned 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 a 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. nableezy - 17:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 17:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned up the subpage mess from the initial title so this isn't needed anymore. Thanks, nableezy - 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted, but it should have been G8 - no biggie though ;) Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, 14 years later and I still dont get the speedy deletion criteria. nableezy - 17:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Amiral Duperré[edit]

The article French ironclad Amiral Duperré 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:French ironclad Amiral Duperré for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Vauban[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Vauban 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Vauban[edit]

The article French ironclad Vauban 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:French ironclad Vauban for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Vauban[edit]

The article French ironclad Vauban you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Vauban for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amiral Baudin-class ironclad[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amiral Baudin-class ironclad 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Hoche[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Hoche 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Hoche[edit]

The article French ironclad Hoche you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Hoche for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of L293D -- L293D (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amiral Baudin-class ironclad[edit]

The article Amiral Baudin-class ironclad 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:Amiral Baudin-class ironclad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Duguesclin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Duguesclin 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Duguesclin[edit]

The article French ironclad Duguesclin 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:French ironclad Duguesclin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Amiral Duperré[edit]

The article French ironclad Amiral Duperré you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Amiral Duperré for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian battlecruisers[edit]

May I inquire why you've reverted my editing? --MediKron (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? Neither of the sources you cited are reliable, and as the list you're editing is Featured, only material cited to reliable sources can be added. Parsecboy (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly makes them "not reliable"? --MediKron (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. A website run by some hobbyist is not an acceptable source. Please add the page numbers for Sieche. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Duguesclin[edit]

The article French ironclad Duguesclin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Duguesclin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vauban-class ironclad[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vauban-class ironclad 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vauban-class ironclad[edit]

The article Vauban-class ironclad 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:Vauban-class ironclad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Magenta (1890)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Magenta (1890) 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amiral Baudin-class ironclad[edit]

The article Amiral Baudin-class ironclad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amiral Baudin-class ironclad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Magenta (1890)[edit]

The article French ironclad Magenta (1890) 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:French ironclad Magenta (1890) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Magenta (1890)[edit]

The article French ironclad Magenta (1890) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ironclad Magenta (1890) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your GA nomination of French ironclad Neptune[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ironclad Neptune 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marceau-class ironclad[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marceau-class ironclad 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)