User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 39

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Formidable (1898) 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) 16:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Irresistible (1898) 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) 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I requested roleback rights here and haven't heard anything back. I'm just wondering about how long should I expect to wait? A 10 fireplane (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That I don't know - I'd guess no more than a day or two, but that's just a shot in the dark. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks anyways. Thought I'd ask since you where listed A 10 fireplane (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Implacable (1899) 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) 02:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Implacable (1899) 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:HMS Implacable (1899) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Queen (1902) 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) 13:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

...so I decided "what the heck?" and went for broke: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Feel free to weigh in if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've commented there. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS London (1899) 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) 03:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS London (1899) 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:HMS London (1899) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Venerable (1899) 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) 03:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Queen (1902) 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:HMS Queen (1902) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of L293D -- L293D (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there might be something with the WikiProject Japan template causing a problem with the tables of content on the talk pages it's added to (like on this page). Any idea what I should do about that? Report it somewhere? Thanks - wolf 01:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right - it's also suppressing the TOC on Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato (which also has the MILHIST, SHIPS and SHIPWRECKS templates, but those aren't causing problems on Talk:Exxon Valdez oil spill or Talk:German battleship Bismarck, for instance). I can't figure out what's causing the problem in the template, but if you look at the Template:WikiProject Japan, it's suppressing its own TOC (unlike Template:WikiProject United States). I'll post something at Template talk:WPBannerMeta and see what we find out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it was a problem with the to-do list embedded in the template. It's fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks - wolf 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Implacable (1899) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Implacable (1899) 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) 00:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS London (1899) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS London (1899) 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) 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Venerable (1899) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Venerable (1899) 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) 01:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Queen (1902) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Queen (1902) 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) 02:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Formidable (1898) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Formidable (1898) 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) 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Irresistible (1898) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Irresistible (1898) 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) 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London-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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Formidable-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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The article London-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London-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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've commented there. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Formidable-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Formidable-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 Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Albemarle (1901) 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) 23:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Albemarle (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Albemarle (1901) 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) 23:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Cornwallis (1901) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Montagu (1901) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Duncan (1901) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bzuk, the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Cornwallis (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Cornwallis (1901) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Montagu (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Montagu (1901) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Russell (1901) 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) 10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Exmouth (1901) 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) 10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Duncan (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Duncan (1901) 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Exmouth (1901) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Exmouth (1901) 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) 04:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Russell (1901) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:HMS Russell (1901) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Duncan-class battleship 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:Duncan-class battleship for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Today, thank you for SMS Kronprinz, the ship that "fought at the Battle of Jutland in the front of the German line, but emerged completely unscathed, while her three sisterships directly ahead were the most damaged German battleships in the engagement. Kronprinz engaged and forced the retreat of the Russian battleship Tsarevitch during the Battle of Moon Sound in 1917. She was ultimately interned in Scapa Flow at the end of the war and scuttled by her crew." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

March

... with thanks from QAI

Today, thank you for SMS Schlesien, with "a relatively eventful career, despite having been made obsolescent by HMS Dreadnought before even entering service. Schlesien was present at the Battle of Jutland during WWI, and was one of the few ships to survive into the postwar navy. Still in active service during WWII, she took part in the invasions Poland in 1939 and Denmark and Norway in 1940, and ended up shelling advancing Soviet forces in 1945, before being scuttled in Swinemunde."! - I took some travel pics, - click on "March" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Today, it's SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913), - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! It seems like a regular fleet review on the main page ;) Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Greek battleship Salamis, List of protected cruisers of Italy, SMS Zähringen, SMS Pommern, SMS Braunschweig, SMS Hessen, SMS Elsass, Augusta-class corvette, Ariadne-class corvette, SMS Medusa (1864), SMS Freya (1874), SMS Nymphe (1863), SMS Augusta, SMS Prinz Adalbert (1876), SMS Ariadne (1871), SMS Luise, SMS Nixe, SMS Charlotte, SMS Wettin, List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire, and List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary during 2018 I hereby present you with these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your work on Greek battleship Salamis, SMS Zähringen, SMS Pommern, SMS Braunschweig, SMS Hessen, SMS Elsass, and SMS Wettin, all of which were promoted to FA in 2018, I hereby award you this Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Featured List Medal
		For you work on List of protected cruisers of Italy, List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire, and List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary, all of which were promoted to FL in 2018, I hereby award you this Featured List Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		Greek battleship Salamis, List of protected cruisers of Italy, SMS Zähringen, SMS Pommern, SMS Braunschweig, SMS Hessen, SMS Elsass, Augusta-class corvette, Ariadne-class corvette, SMS Medusa (1864), SMS Freya (1874), SMS Nymphe (1863), SMS Augusta, SMS Prinz Adalbert (1876), SMS Ariadne (1871), SMS Luise, SMS Nixe, SMS Charlotte, SMS Wettin, List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire, and List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary I hereby award you this Wikiproject Ships Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Greek Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work on Greek battleship Salamis I hereby award you this Greek Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
		This WikiAward was given to Parsecboy by TomStar81 (Talk) on 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Italian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work on List of protected cruisers of Italy I hereby award you the WikiProject Italy award. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Parsecboy by TomStar81 (Talk) on 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work on Greek battleship Salamis I hereby award you The Left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		In recognition of the decision by the Wikipedia Signpost to feature SMS Zähringen as the lead image for its "Feature Content" section in the 05 February 2018 edition you are hereby presented with the Special Barnstar. Admittedly, this was a "luck of the draw" matter, but its still worthy on noting :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! It helped that I had a nice, big painting for that last one ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Parsecboy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 1. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Giants - the blurb looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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 Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

		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 October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Congratulations, well deserved.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Pennsy! Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS King Edward VII 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) 07:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Commonwealth 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Hindustan (1903) 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:HMS Hindustan (1903) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Commonwealth 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:HMS Commonwealth for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Dominion 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Dominion 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:HMS Dominion for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Britannia (1904) 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) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Africa (1905) 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) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Zealandia 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) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Commonwealth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Commonwealth 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Dominion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Dominion 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Hibernia (1905) 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) 08:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS King Edward VII you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS King Edward VII 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) 08:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King Edward VII-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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The article King Edward VII-class battleship 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:King Edward VII-class battleship for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello PB firstly congrats. I'm happy to see this article reaching FA-class. Secondly, sadly that not all of my comments were replied and addressed in this nomination. The weird part is that Sarastro1 clossed the nomination before I could give you my support and before you even saw which comments I meant. Can you please have a look into the clossed nomination and answer my comments? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - that is odd that Sarastro closed it before I could respond to your comments, perhaps they saw that I had responded to you but didn't notice that you added another comment. I took out the short tons from the one conversion template, but I think the "autumn" thing is fine as is. Readers should be able to context clue their way to the correct time frame from the fact that the article discusses events in June and July before the maneuvers and November afterward. Hildebrand et. al. usually gives specific dates for the maneuvers, but they didn't in this instance - they were typically in late August and into September, FWIW. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes indeed it's a little bit odd. That's fair enough, anyway if I could I would surely give you my support. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also good luck with the other thousand ships. I'd say you and Sturm have work for an other decade. Cheers. :p CPA-5 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks - with any luck, the battleships will be done by 2020, at least as far as everything being GA or above - there's another 60 or so articles left to write, so we'll see how we do. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ha 60 articles for GA in 2020 and in 2030 everything has to be A-class or above. :) Nah you and Sturm can easily archive GA in those 60 or so articles in 2020. In the last months, I was watching closely to your, Sturm's and the battleships progresses. It impressed me (alot), that you both could make it that far and fastly in the last years. Especially for you, you're already working almost a whole decade on those articles. That's why I started reviewing your and Sturm's articles, to give you both a little pat on the back if I could say that of course. :p Any support is welcome even from "someone who's English so great like me" but hey it's an intresting topic. Also I re-reviewed your Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser A-Class nomination Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• The trouble is, we've left most of the difficult work for last ;) It's easy to chop through a few dozen British pre-dreadnoughts that were already in fairly decent shape, it's another thing to tackle monsters like French battleship Richelieu, USS Tennessee (BB-43), or Queen Elizabeth-class battleship, which all basically need to be rewritten from scratch. The other problem is, Sturm and I easily get distracted ;) He's been off writing scores of articles on German torpedo-boats and Soviet destroyers, and these are calling my name.
• I do appreciate your reviews - one of the biggest hurdles to moving things beyond GA-level is getting enough people to review articles so they can be promoted - the Schlesien FAC lasted just about 2 months. I'll get to your additions to the Ersatz Yorck review in the morning. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ha! I definitely can believe that! It shouldn't suprise me that you and Sturm can get distracted that easily. But that's not a problem, we and Wikipedia have time. Also you still have co-operators like L293D and Kges1901, which make also some (little more) progresses in the ships. They can still help you and Sturm. But what I can't and won't belive is that you wouldn't reach your GA goal in the ships in 2020. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I guess we'll just have to see how far we get ;) One problem right now is that White Shadows, who had been rewriting the Austro-Hungarian ship articles last year (after a rather long wikibreak) hasn't edited since December - hopefully he'll be back soon. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh dear God I totaly forgot him, it's already two months ago. I hope nothing bad happend to him. Sadly that's life here on Wikipedia some people work hard like you and Sturm to establish a real, meaningful and importand goal and then you have people like me who don't work that hard but try to do their best to make Wikipedia a meaningful place. But everywhere and anytime can someone drop Wikipedia because something happend in the real world bad or good they're gone for a really long time or even gone forever. Yes indeed I hope he will be safe and back soon too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, he had been gone for several years before - let's hope this is a shorter departure. There have been editors who just dropped off the face of the earth though - one of the original OMT editors (user:MBK004) just stopped editing one day back in 2010. I never heard what happened to him. That's the nature of a place like this, I suppose. Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The article King Edward VII-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King Edward VII-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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Resolution (09) 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) 02:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Resolution (09) 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:HMS Resolution (09) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2019... you know the drill. Help Dan out if you see anything in the blurb that needs fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. The article will likely need a bit of work to get ready, but there's plenty of time for that.

The article HMS Resolution (09) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Resolution (09) 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) 09:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Britannia (1904) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Britannia (1904) 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) 16:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Hibernia (1905) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Hibernia (1905) 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) 08:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What was wrong with the cite style I changed it to? I am trying to change all the cites on that page to that style as it is cleaner and what most other pages use. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You should not change the citation style used in an article without securing consensus to do so on the article talk page. You also degraded the accuracy of the citation - you removed the specific page number when you converted the short cite to the long cite. You can read WP:CITEVAR for further info on this. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I moved a copy to my sandbox and worked on it there. I tried to make sure that all the citations have the correct page numbers, so please tell me if I missed anything. If there are any other issues, please tell me. If not, as you are the main contribute to the article, do you think that would be consensus enough? I really enjoyed reading the article, and I wish it luck on gaining featured status. Thanks! WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, I don't like long citations - they're too cluttered and generally require too many compromises to make them work accurately. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The hypens come and go on ship/class pages. For example, it's hyphenated in the 1st sentence of the lead at the Iowa-class page (which form I followed in making my edit). If you know the grammar distinctions that well, perhaps you could spare some time from page monitoring to make some corrections on them. A hidden explanatory note at the top would go a long way toward casual editors and non-grammarians' understanding of the rules, as there's a hyphen in the page name, none in the intro of the lead, none in the Infobox for preceding and succeeding classes, then they dance around throughout any given ship/class page's text.Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the hyphen is present in the first sentence at Iowa-class battleship because it is identical to the title (which is to say, "Iowa-class" is a compound adjective modifying "battleship", the noun. When "Iowa" is the adjective modifying "class", the noun, there is no hyphen. I fix hyphen issues as I find them, but I don't generally have the time to go scouring for them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I went and fixed the Iowa class article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm kinda getting it now. Grammar biz. Saw where you fixed an instance of errant hyphenry in the body of the article, but left the intro line of the lead as is. Clearly the use of "battleship" in bold is redundant of referring to the class as "fast battleships" immediately after (as in the South Dakota article). So I deleted that redundant word, which also required eliminating the hyphen in the initial use of "Iowa class". That should take care of it for that article, at the least. Thanks for the education. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem - the lead looks good to me. Grammar stuff is a complicated thing, and I'm by no means an expert on it all, this is just one little thing I've mastered over the years ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Africa (1905) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Africa (1905) 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, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

The article HMS Zealandia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Zealandia 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, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have spent most my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism but am starting to get into editing articles. As of right now I have taken on the task of getting Anti-torpedo bulge up to GA status but am not really sure where to start. Do you have any suggestions as to what I should do first? A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The first thing I'd suggest is to look up sources on the first ships to carry the bulges - the Edgars are mentioned as the testbeds for the bulges. D. K. Brown's book is listed in the references for the Anti-torpedo bulge article, and that would likely be a good place to start, as would Friedman's British Cruisers of the Victorian Era (that I haven't read, so I can't say whether it includes details on later modifications, but based on Friedman's other books, I'd wager it does.

The other thing you'd want to do is to sketch out an outline of how you see the article developing - you'd probably want a background section that discusses the threat of torpedoes and the various methods used to defend against them (mostly you're going to be looking at anti-torpedo nets), a section on the development of the idea (covering Tennyson-D'Eyncourt's experimentation with the Edgars, tests with HMS Ramillies (07) that led to the bulges being added to the other four Revenge-class battleships, etc.), a section on the effectiveness of the bulges (you could discuss their impact on ship handling in addition to examples of vessels being torpedoed in the world wars), and maybe a section on later anti-torpedo defense systems (torpedo bulkheads and the Pugliese system come to mind). Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you for the advice, I will definitely follow A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for SMS Preussen (1903), SMS Lothringen, and French battleship Bretagne. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I take it that all the measurements in the infobox came from the book source. This info should also appear in a "Description" section and be referenced. This addition should raise the article to Start class. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning on beating the article into shape once I finish my current project. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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 Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

Happy Valentine's Day PB. I hope you have/had a great Valentine's Day with your loved one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope your day was good as well! Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 27, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS California (BB-44) 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) 17:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

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 US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Ramillies (07) 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) 05:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Ramillies (07) 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:HMS Ramillies (07) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey PB may I ask you a question? I'm just curious but I saw that you and Sturm uses Brtish English if the ships are British or French and American English in German and American ships but why are the Japanese ships written in British instead of American English? Because by Tetsuya Fukuda Dokkyo University most students want to learn American English - see link. [1] And East Asians in general uses American English – see link.[2] Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We're bound to respect the variant originally used and most of the Japanese ships were started by a Canadian, IIRC, so...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Oh hey Sturm didn't expect you here. Yes I understand your point on one side. So you mean if it is written by a Canadian hen it means you are writing -ize instead of -ise on that article. But one thing is really odd to me. You want to use American English in the Normandie-class battleship article but the article originally uses British English because it was made by a Briton. So why changing the originally style of English? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker! We're not supposed to change the original style, although we've done it inadvertently more than once. Personally I don't take the time to go back and see what it was originally, I go with whatever it's got when I start work on it. If it's mixed without strong national ties, I'll default to my native AmEng.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Well, that's why I thought you and PB uses strong national ties. Countries like Japan or China as examples uses American English even it's not their offcial language but anyway as long it will reached (and stay) FA-class in whatever kinda style of English it is. PS how nice to call me a talk page stalker. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nah, I'm the stalker, not you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• That's the Sturm I know, I guess you will never change. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• What Sturm said - basically it's up to whoever created the page unless they left it as a stub, in which case whoever wants to write the article can choose. Personally, I think the rule is a bit outdated and too strict - I feel that if I'm going to take a start-class article and develop it to FA level, I ought to be able to pick what version of English I want to write it in, but that opinion so far hasn't caught on ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Ramillies (07) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Ramillies (07) 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) 03:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I translated German FK cruiser designs to pl.wiki and somebody asked me question: in article there is The designs carried up to 1,000 t (980 long tons; 1,100 short tons) and 1,150 t (1,130 long tons; 1,270 short tons) of fuel oil, respectively, which permitted a cruising radius of 2,800 nautical miles (5,200 km; 3,200 mi) at a speed of 17 kn (31 km/h; 20 mph. That means that in total this cruisers can go 5600 nautical miles (so "cruising radius"x2) or that was range of this ships? PMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No, "cruising radius" is a synonym for "cruising range", so 2,800 miles, not 5,600. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that we've renominated Albatros and perhaps you'll have a chance to see if your previous comments have been adequately addressed before it's archived.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - there's just one thing I commented on there, but it's not a big deal. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The article HMS Revenge (06) 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:HMS Revenge (06) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Parsecboy, your post did not get signed here User talk:Szegedi_László#WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. You can remove this post if you want, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops - thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

The article USS California (BB-44) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS California (BB-44) 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) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Is preemptive disambiguation still required for military topics? I thought that was finally changed. See Defence Helicopter Flying School (United Kingdom). Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) 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) 09:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The article USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) 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 Pennsylvania (BB-38) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. In D-class cruiser (Germany) there is sentence "The D-class ships used steel manufactured by Krupp for their armor". Was this Krupp armour? Or some other steel. PMG (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, plain Krupp armor was long since outdated by the 1930s - Groener doesn't say, but it likely would've been a combination of Wotan Hart and Wotan Weich, which were improvements on Krupp cemented steel. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The article USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) 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) 03:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You know the drill ... (oh, bad pun for a Milhist editor!). Date is 5 May 2019, blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2019 Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha, and as a veteran, to boot, I've had my fill of drills ;) I'll take a look at the article in the next couple of days and make sure there isn't anything significant that needs to be updated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Tennessee (BB-43) 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) 12:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The article USS Tennessee (BB-43) 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 Tennessee (BB-43) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll get my verification from the Naval History and Heritage Command. I've contacted Public Affairs about the discrepancy. I've been in contact with a member of the http://www.ussutah1941.org/ memorial organization which provided me with the picture of the Honor Roll from the Memorial at Pearl Harbor off of Ford Island. So, I'll get confirmation from the Navy as to the official Death & Survivor counts. I expect they'll be surprised if the Honor Roll is in fact, in error, and would need to be corrected.

Regards, Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've found the people who run DANFS to be receptive to correcting errors, so let me know if and when they update the site. I had the contact info for the Rear Admiral who was in charge, but that was several years ago and I'm sure he's long gone. Speaking of that, I need to get around to hassling them about this mess. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I've finally gotten a reply from the Naval History and Heritage Command concerning this question. It seems an error was introduced somewhere along the way with the death toll count for the USS Utah. They've verified my number which was supplied by the USS Utah BB-31 Memorial Organization. The picture of the plaque is indeed a factual list of the dead. They are in the process of correcting the on-line information and I've asked them to notify me when that correction has been made.

This is an extract from the e-mail I received:

MC2 Capizzi and Dr. Bereiter,

I’d forgotten I had a book in my office about the Utah (published 2009), which contains a copy of the original DANFS history (which I wrote) available when the author wrote the book -- not the original DANFS hard-copy published in 1981 that gave incorrect numbers) that gives the corrected numbers as:

6 officers and 52 enlisted, for a total of 58 dead.

Four enlisted men’s remains (no officers) were recovered and buried ashore.

I’m at a loss to say why the numbers were changed somewhere along the line (2017?).

Rest assured the correct numbers will be up ASAP when I get into the CQ5.

My apologies for any inconvenience caused, that’s my fault – I should have gotten to this RFI sooner.

Further update:

Thank you for contacting Naval History and Heritage Command! We are committed to assisting you in your request. Please see information below to best accommodate your request.

Once the entry has been updated on our website, you will be forwarded the link so you can provide WIKI with the correct reference.

Very respectfully,

Communication and Outreach Division

Naval History and Heritage Command

Excellent, that's great to hear - let me know when they email you the link and I'll update the page. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The article USS Tennessee (BB-43) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Tennessee (BB-43) 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) 02:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Indiana (BB-58) 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) 15:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser, List of screw corvettes of Germany, Braunschweig-class battleship, Wittelsbach-class battleship, and French battleship Jauréguiberry Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of USS Augustus Holly. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Izno (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The article USS Indiana (BB-58) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Indiana (BB-58) 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) 20:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to SMS Pillau, omitting articles before ship names may be style in naval or military writing, but I don't think it is in general expository writing, including historical writing. Normally, one speaks of "the Titanic," "the Bismarck," etc. I would expect encyclopedic writing to follow the same practice. Comment? –

There have been several lengthy discussions on this at WP:SHIPS - it used to be covered in the project guidelines but was removed at some point. In any event, in my view, ship names are much the same as a person's name; one wouldn't say "the Fred went to the store". Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, but surprising as this may seem to the nautically minded, ships are not people, they are things. That they usually have names is merely tradition – a type of anthropomorphism. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the MoS for images discourages using forced image sizing. The biggest concern is that not all displays are the same size (particularly with a lot of readers on smart phones these days) and so forced size can cause problems there. Also, it overrides the preferences of logged in users, since they can set a preference to display photos at larger or smaller sizes. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Scheint mir nicht leserfreundlich oder wirklich nötig. – Sca (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a case to be made that most readers aren't logged in and thus don't have preferences to override. And I don't know how common it is to have display problems on mobile devices - both versions of the photo looked fine on my iphone. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As a rule we should not force size of images. By forcing size of image you are telling "I am sure that in 15 years this image should have this size only and no changes in technology, browsers, MediaWiki, common.css/js, user settings should change it". It's really strong statement. Wikipedia existed 15 years ago, and probably will exist in 15 years. People will may be using VR and other new technologies, and this size will be still forced. PMG (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---