This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bellhalla. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've gone over the refs and the bibliography section and I think have those and unit conversions tightened up quite a bit. Will try and take a look at prose either this evening or tomorrow a.m. (CDT) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Batavier Line, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – JoeN01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Milhist Coordinator elections
I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.
Request
Hey, Bellhalla, would you be able to Copyedit Japanese battleship Haruna before I take it for FAC? I'm looking at doing so sometime in the next month, just to give you an approximation of a timeframe. Cam(Chat)19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated German submarine U-132, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German submarine U-132. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Coordinator of the Military history Project March 2009 — October 2009
Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The big news of course was the seventh project coordinator election covering the period ending 30 September. The quality of the candidates was extremely high, with some of the project's top content builders running alongside highly experienced backroom people. Of the eighteen candidates, sixteen were finally appointed, giving us probably the most rounded coordination team so far.
The C-class referendum, held at the same time, produced a slight majority of votes for introduction, but was insufficient to demonstrate a clear consensus. So, for the time being at least, therefore, the project will continue without C-class. Otherwise, focus is likely be on the Academy and the development of courses to develop reviewing, copy-editing and article-building skills. Some review of our task forces is also probable, perhaps consolidating some of the smaller, quieter, ones. As ever, input from everyone is not only welcomed but positively encouraged.
The coordinators' gratitude goes not only to those who participated in the election and referenda but also to everyone who works quietly and conscientiously away to make participation in this project rewarding, successful and productive. Milhist is very fortunate in its membership! Thank you all, Roger Daviestalk16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I jumped the gun and went ahead with your talk page request since I was getting fed up with seeing that large copyvio notice every time I looked at the article. -MBK00401:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-12, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Copyright issues on United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)
In your GA review of the Battleship Division Nine article, you take issue with a number of the photographs used and have tagged them for deletion. This worries me because to eliminate those photos would seriously damage the effectiveness of the article (especially given that I have yet to find an unencumbered picture of BatDiv9 that is readily available anywhere else). All of the photos you take issue with are more than 70-years old, and it is doubtful that the author can be identified easily in any of them. If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that the use of any of those pictures is fair game (under American or British copyright law). Furthermore, if these works were made in the course of the official duties of either a British or an American gov't photographer, they again appear to be fair game (this seems likely to be the case, especially in the photo of the admirals with King George V). If you would please write back with your thougts I would appreciate it, and if you do not agree, please indicate the suggestions you have for satisfying the copyright issues. Jrt989 (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Without getting mired in the intricacies of copyright laws, which is not an area I'm an expert in, the age of the work is not the issue. (If only it were that simple!) For photographs in the US, it is the date of publication that starts the clock running, not the date they were taken or the date the film was developed.
In the case of both of the photographs, I happen to agree that both are likely public domain, but there is no way from what is provided to verify that either is definitively in the public domain. Unfortunately, Commons is for images that are verifably free, not merely likely to be free. If you can provide the publication history of either photograph or find anything that verifies that they are out of copyright or otherwise in the public domain, please add that information to the photo page at Commons and note it in the appropriate deletion discussion. If you feel that either photograph is essential to the article, upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) and tag it with a fair-use rationale. (For an example of a photograph in a similar situation—likely (but unverifiably) in the public domain—see File:German submarine SM UB-5.jpg.)
The image of the painting is a different matter. As I understand it—and again I'm not an expert—a painting is protected until 70 years after the death of the artist (1962 in the case of Gribble). Any scan, photograph, drawing of, engraving, etc. is a derivative work and, thus, covered by the same copyright as the original. The painting can be uploaded under fair-use if the painting is being discussed critically, but as merely an illustration in the article United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I), it would probably not meet Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that date of publications is what matters in the United States, but from the relevant Commons pd tag for the matter it would appear that in Britain if the author is unknown, any work made before January 1, 1939 is in the public domain, so long as "reasonable enquiry" will not reveal who the author is. As you point out in your GA review, "there's no way to verify" the authorship of these photographs, so it seems that any of these works that can be traced to Britain can be considered in the PD.Jrt989 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, about the Gribble image: That painting is a derivative work of a photograph taken at the same time (it's exactly the same, just in paint). You wouldn't happen to know if that makes it fair game since it lacks "uniqueness of expression" or whatever the phrase is? Thanks, Jrt989 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
For the UK PD, if that's true then that's fantastic. Be sure to note that on the image pages and they should be fine.
In regards to the painting being based on a photograph… Hmmm… (If you haven't added that fact to the image page, you really should.) Anyway, logic – not always necessarily relevant in legal matters ;) – would seem to point to your conclusion. But, for a much more qualified opinion on either of these matters, I'd suggest contacting Elcobbola who is much wiser than I in the ways of copyright, and a really nice person, too. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. Would you be kind enough to do whatever is necessary to stop those pictures being deleted until I have a chance to work on the copyright issues? I would do it myself, but I'm still something of a novice when it comes to that sort of thing, and am not sure I would do it right. Give me some time to fix the errors, and if I haven't to your satisfaction, you can re-tag them for deletion. Thanks! Jrt989 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Tenmei has filed an ArbCom case against me and I have done a little research on Tenmei and noted you have interacted with this user. Can you help provide an opinion about him? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
My interactions with Tenmei were in conjunction with his dispute with Nick-D, and seeing that Nick-D has already commented, I don't think there's a lot more that I could say. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Request (redux)
I have a semi-unusual request. Would you mind doing the GA review for United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)? There are some issues that I have identified (but I don't want to take on a full review) (the use of the before all ship names and some MOS issues) and think this article needs a thorough review by an editor with knowledge of the subject. You were my first choice. The article is not of my authorship, but of Jrt989 (talk·contribs). Thanks, -MBK00406:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Ottava, Ottava...I disagree with his thought that it is an "original statement" because it's not like you are analyzing the data—you are just converting it to prose. I'll have a chat with him on IRC tonight if he's on after I get out of work. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussed. Quoting relevant thoughts from Ottava during our conversation: "It just might have someone complain during GA or FA" "[he] chose a random period of days instead of including all of the info" "Someone could say "why not pick a ten day period", etc" "Im just saying that all of the kills should be listed somehow : P" "hence why I left the note so you can make sure to keep that in mind" —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The only thing missing from the article is that this was almost assuredly on one patrol. What I wrote in the article was a close as I could get to making that point without having a source to back it up. As far as "all of the kills should be listed somehow"… Umm, what, exactly, is the list at the bottom of the article? Chopped liver? Oh, well. It didn't hold up the DYK nom… — Bellhalla (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-10, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-8, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the review. I've made changes to SM U-11 based on your valuable feedback, and posted specific replies at the GA review page to all of your comments there. I've also made similar changes to a very closely related article, SM UB-9, which is also nominated for GA status. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've passed SM UB-10, and I'm working on SM UB-12 - there's what looks like a rather large hole in the content of the article, though. I've left a note on talk, and if you get a chance to look into it, that'd be great.
Yes, you're right. I was trying to think of ways I could fail it… Umm. Yeah, I forgot that I'd signed up for it. I'll get to it this morning. Thanks for the friendly reminder. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
When I worked on the tally, I looked at the previous month's scoring to see how the mechanics of the scoreboard were done and followed that procedure, namely: I took the February score and added into the total and replaced it with the March score (which was not included in the total). That sort of a setup—not including the March tally in the overall score—didn't make a great deal of sense to me at the time. I'll take a look at other months farther back and see what's going on. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking back, I just screwed up: I misread what I saw for February. So, you are correct, and your total stands at 341. Eleven other entrants' totals were wrong and have also been corrected, but the March contest scores and results were unaffected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Bellhalla, you fail. Please accept this token of our gratitude: ;D
I noticed that you've added defaultsorts to various articles on MSC ships. I'm not sure if those should be defaultsorted as MSC isn't a ship prefix but rather an abbreviation of the company name (the full ship name with prefix would be for instance MS MSC Sinfonia). If those are defaultsorted by the "second" name, then by default all ship names with a company name prefix should be defaultsorted with the "second" name. Which at least at the moment isn't common practice. — Kjet (talk ·contribs) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahh. My mistake, then. I've done so many {{DEFAULTSORT:}}s over the last few days and seen so many strange ship prefixes, I guess I just thought that MSC was another one of them. But, yes it should be sorted under MSC Sinfonia, and I've changed it back. I also changed MSC Armonia, too. There didn't seem to be any others in Category:Ships of MSC Cruises, but if there are, please let me know and I'll repair my (good-intentioned) damage.
On a related note, I did see that a good many of the Carnival ships with names like Carnival Miracle appear under the second name in Category:Ships of Carnival Cruise Lines. I probably wouldn't set it up that way, but have no problems if they sort that way in that one specific category. In those cases, I've been adding a default sort under the full name, with a piped override for just the Carnival ships category. Anyway, Kjet, thanks for bringing the MSC thing to my attention. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It is confusing, and you aren't actually the first one to make that mistake. Good to have that cleared. The sorting of Carnival ships for that particular category is a bit odd, though I guess sorting them like that does have it's merits in a cat mostly filled with ships with the same first name. — Kjet (talk ·contribs) 09:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of your help on all of this. I'll move the list from your user space either to my user space or to WP:SHIPS project space later today.
The whole subs-as-boats argument has been discussed in the past, and current consensus is that while submariners and the like often refer to their vessels as "boats", they are classed as "ships". The WikiProject Ships categorization scheme includes all submarine categories in parent ship categories. If anyone else comments on this, please continue to send them to my talk page or to the discussion page of the WikiProject. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It certainly is a real offer. The task that occurred to me as I ran today's task was doing the same loop through the pages that transclude {{Infobox Ship Career}} and putting them in the appropriate list of ships commissioned, decommissioned, wrecked and launched. Best wishes, [[Sam Korn]](smoddy)17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
.png)
