![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Hey mate I just found out that the "Development and cancellation" section of the article L 20e α-class battleship uses a "British cancellation". Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
USS Alabama (BB-60) 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) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS Alabama (BB-60) 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 Alabama (BB-60) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 07:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS Alabama (BB-60) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:USS Alabama (BB-60) 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) 23:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For placing second in the April 2019 Milhist article writing contest, with 86 points from nine articles, I hereby award you this Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the project. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
USS North Carolina (BB-55) 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) 07:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS North Carolina (BB-55) 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 North Carolina (BB-55) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 08:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS North Carolina (BB-55) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:USS North Carolina (BB-55) 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, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
USS South Dakota (BB-57) 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) 08:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
USS Washington (BB-56) 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) 02:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS South Dakota (BB-57) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:USS South Dakota (BB-57) 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) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
Tennessee-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:Tennessee-class battleship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
G'day Nate, just wondering if you would be willing to co-nom SMS Niobe for ACR. I know I have done bugger-all on developing the article, but I am trying to move the GT Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy towards FT, and it would help in that respect. No doubt it would also be an minor move towards getting Light cruisers of Germany towards FT. As an alternative or perhaps also in addition after that, I am also keen in progressing SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf as well. These two are the main non-primary Yugoslav ship articles I am interested in progressing. No biggie if you have bigger fish to fry/other priorities. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
French battleship Strasbourg 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) 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
French battleship Strasbourg 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 battleship Strasbourg for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 06:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Parsecboy, we have a differ about something to the range of the 38 cm SK. My sources are Schmalenbach from edition 1993, Koop/Schmolke (their books are not good) as soon as Siegfried Breyer Schlachtschiff und Schlachtkreuzer 1905-1970 and the Marine-Arsenal Bd. 29 "Die Schlachtsschiffe der Bayern-Klasse". I think, Friedman confused the rail gun with the ship's guns. MfG URTh ( talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
French battleship Strasbourg you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:French battleship Strasbourg 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) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS Washington (BB-56) you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:USS Washington (BB-56) 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) 20:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For placing second in the May 2019 Milhist article writing contest, with a brilliant 158 points from 24 articles, I hereby award you this Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the project. Well done! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Dunkerque-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) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The article
Dunkerque-class battleship you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Dunkerque-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) 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: It’s my understanding that one nautical knot is equal to 1.15 land mph. Assuming this, why then do ship articles show mph exceeding knots?
Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship: Speed: 17.5 knots (32.4 km/h; 20.1 mph)
What is interesting here is that if you multiply 17.5 knots X 1.15 it equals 20.1 mph? What am I missing? Thanks for your help. Pendright ( talk) 01:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
May I ask why have you changed the picture in the article for the French battleship carnot? Tombeer9 ( talk) 20:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I have updated the death toll on the USS Utah page. The Naval History and Heritage Command has updated their on-line page to provide the correct numbers so the existing URL reference does not need to be changed. I'm updating the date of the reference to 6/26/2019.
At this point, I see no reason not to include the jpeg of the memorial plaque provided to me by the USS Utah Memorial Organization which lists all 58 officers and sailors who perished during the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I have a question and please don't take this the wrong way. I don't edit much. Respectfully, why do you (and others on other web pages) seem to "have control" and are the final arbiters of what can and can't be included on a Wiki page? I'd like to understand this because I'm in another discussion with someone who disagrees with my changes to the "Death Wish (1974)" film. My changes in that case were within the same kind of thought pattern about cast members not on the official cast credits in the movie, but the actor I added has a long history of working in NY and I saw no reason why they shouldn't be added. My edit was deemed "not related" to the movie, but the whole paragraph was about uncredited cast members and their work on other projects. So, why are my changes regarded as irrelevant whereas his opinion is the final say since he reverted my changes? This seems to be counter to the whole idea of the Wiki. Or what am I missing?
I can understand our discussion on the death toll since you were using the Naval History and Heritage Command website as "factual" even though it "disagreed" with 2 commemoration plaques (I wasn't aware of the one at the capitol building). However, it seem to me that should have at least required a notation that there was conflicting information on the death toll between the "official" information on the DANFS site and the 2 available plaques which were created using some kind of official list. Typically, you don't cast 2 plaques in bronze without having a verified list of names when they were produced. I'm glad I was able to get the source of the information to research and correct the error and bring this to a final conclusion.
I'm trying to understand how this process works, so your insight and commentary would be useful to me for future editing efforts that I will undertake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I understand you have a vested interest as a serious writer on the subject of naval histories. When I updated the article with the correct death toll, I also added a citation superscript in the upper body of the article where it first discusses the death toll. You edited my update and deleted that citation. It would seem to me that the citation should appear at the first mention of the death toll, but now it continues to reside only in the second mention of the death toll. How does deleting the upper citation degrade the article in any way? Why did you feel it needed to be deleted and only appear later in the article?
Also, the final sentence of that section "The wreck remains in the harbor, and in 1972, a memorial was erected near the ship." It states there is a memorial and the picture that started this whole discussion of the memorial plaque is available and I think that should be made part of the article since it is available. You have pictures of the actual site, so why not include the picture of the bronze memorial plaque? Also, the wreck is the grave of only 54 men since 4 bodies were recovered and interred. That is not included in the Salvage section and would be a fact that it's a war grave for 54 men.
I can see that you want accuracy, so I go back to one of my original comments. If there were 2 bronze plaques that were "most likely" created based on the official history of the Utah and created many years before Wiki even existed, why wouldn't you include the standard disclaimer I've seen in multiple other articles that when there is conflicting information, so add a specific notice added to the article so that readers will know that there is an issue with the item. Then when I got the official info that the plaques were correct from the Naval History and Heritage Command, this could have been changed to "The death toll has been confirmed to be 58 and we are awaiting the official update to the DANFS web site before updating this article."
So, I don't see how changes like these would damage the overall integrity of the article. Why do you think they will? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll concede the issue of the location of the citation based on your reference which talks about challenging a particular piece of information. Personally, I think that the citation should always be at the first instance, but that's my preference.
In terms of the death toll, I still disagree. If you blow up the plaque, you'll see that it was erected by the "Surviving Officers and Men of the USS Utah 1946.". Since this predates the original DANFS entry (6 Dec 2015 if I recall correctly) on the web page and was erected by the people who actually served on the ship, this should have been given great weight as to whether the DANFS entry was indeed correct. So, I stand by my original statement that a significant notation should have been made that the number in DANFS "may be questionable and needs further research due to a historical plaque at the Utah Capitol showing only 58 men perished" instead of posting it as fact. In fact, if I hadn't been in touch with the Utah Survivors organization who sent me a picture of the plaque from the actual Utah War Memorial and then researched it with Naval History and Heritage Command, this error would have continued to be perpetuated. I got involved because I watched a program on the Pearl Harbor Attack and it talked about the loss of the Utah, something I wasn't aware of at the time. Maybe if this had been noted, the error could have been corrected much earlier. Therefore, people who may feel that Wiki is indeed factual could have perpetuated this error into other media and writings since there was no warning of the discrepancy between the plaque and the DANFS data.
Yes, it's all moot now since the error has been corrected, but for the future, when there are conflicts in info, it should be properly noted and maybe someone will be intrigued enough to research the conflict and find the piece of documentation that provides a resolution. Aspenguy2 ( talk) 16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, again I disagree. People these days take Wikipedia articles as "fact" and I've found multiple instances of where the 58 and 64 figures have been used on multiple websites since they probably saw the plaques stating 58 and the Wiki article which stated 64. My assumption is that most people use Wikipedia to gather their "facts" and since this article used the erroneous number, it has been perpetuated. I even found an article on Huffpost which stated the 64 number unequivocally. I'm trying to contact all of these websites to find out where they got their numbers to see if my hypothesis is correct. So, you may not consider plaques to be a reliable source, but ignoring multiple plaques, all of which have the correct number of 58 and not investigating that the Navy possibly made a mistake in their posting perpetuated this error. If, as I have stated multiple times, a notation had been made about this discrepancy, it could have been corrected at an earlier date. I can understand your questioning some of the plaques, but I just don't understand your logic in ignoring the 1946 survivor plaque. Do you really think that the Utah survivors would have a bronze plaque cast with the 58 number as "unreliable"? This seems to insult the men that actually lived through the attack and created the plaque to honor their fellow shipmates. I expect they put a lot of thought and research before the final plaque was cast.
I just did a search on USS Utah Memorial Plaque and found a more complete picture of the plaque I had originally posted. It was at the bottom of the memorial with a groundbreaking date of 7 Dec 1971. So, again, a simple search found a plaque erected by the US Navy nearly 48 years ago. I expect that the US Navy would only erect a plaque with 58 names if they had their facts correct.
So, in this instance, a plaque seems to be a reliable source since it was erected by a reliable source, namely the US Navy. Aspenguy2 ( talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You're also ignoring my viewpoint. I agree that citing a plaque as an "authoritative source" is insufficient, I already conceded that you were right about that. My point was that the existence of 2 plaques which pre-dated on-line references was enough to call into question whether the 64 number was correct. I believe that if an academic saw these 2 plaques (especially one from the US Navy) which contradicts a single written history source where it stated that the number was 64 instead of the 58 listed on the plaque they would have done additional research. A good academic would then have noted that the 64 number needed additional verification from the "authoritative" source before it was accepted as fact. I contacted the "authoritative" source you used and asked them to verify their number given the existence of the plaques. There are many examples in history where this has happened and by not noting the discrepancy, it becomes an accepted fact simply because it's been repeated so many times. You accepted this as fact based on the reference you used and didn't think to question whether the "authoritative" source might be in error. You had the picture of the capitol plaque which stated the 58 number and never made the effort to find out why there was a discrepancy with the source you were using. Doesn't this shows a lack of academic rigor you imply you are using when writing the entries? Aspenguy2 ( talk) 17:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to find a way to include a section on the Utah Memorial Organization - http://www.ussutah1941.org/home.html as part of the article. They have a significant amount of additional photographs and other information which should be made accessible by a discussion in the Wiki entry. How can we add this? Aspenguy2 ( talk) 17:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Since I didn't receive any negative feedback on my suggested edit, I've added a single sentence in the Memorial section to allow readers to go directly the Survivor Organization website.
Aspenguy2 (
talk) 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I also added a sentence about visiting the Memorial since it's basically not accessible unless you're military or have an escort.
I see you added a citation for my sentence, thanks. Aspenguy2 ( talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I've been Googling the Internet about the Utah and there are sure a lot of places that reference the death toll. Most of them state their is a discrepancy between 64 and 58. I've been emailing them to request they correct their website or article to get the correct info out there into the ether. Aspenguy2 ( talk) 16:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm making some progress on correcting websites now that the death toll is "verified". https://www.nps.gov/valr/learn/historyculture/battleship-row.htm was using the "64" figure and on July 2, 2019, they corrected the figure to 58, so I'm making some progress. Aspenguy2 ( talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Do what you like. You're clearly in charge, and frankly, I don't give enough of a damn. Just make sure you change all of the other articles with these on if you think they should be removed. Because it should be all or none, not "the one that I've just noticed" Hammersfan ( talk) 20:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
My plan, if you're okay with this, is to revert this to the uncropped version (as that's what I'm doing the restoration from) once the restoration is far enough along to replace all current usages. As you can see at File:SMS_Arcona_NH_65764_-_Restoration.png, I've nearly finished removing the text, but I feel that I should at least remove all the text before uploading a JPEG and replacing usage. It's a fine image. I'm sure I'll get an FP out of it. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 02:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Still a ways to go, but ready for articles, especially relative to the original. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 03:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Pasecboy, I'm sorry for being rude to you yesterday. Hindbærbrus ( talk) 11:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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) 07:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS West Virginia (BB-48) you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 01:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
On 12 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth L. Gardner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth L. Gardner served as a WASP during World War II and was the subject of an iconic photo (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth L. Gardner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Elizabeth L. Gardner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
See what you started? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign. Some of your fellows are a bit resentful. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Any ship photos or illustrations you'd particularly like restored? Ideally, a fallback might be a good idea: Sometimes images get annoying faster than I'd like.
Oh, um. Something not TOO damaged. I lost several hours of work to GIMP crashing mid-save and thus eating my save file on an image recently, so I really want a few successes before I do something big again. SMS Arcona level is fine, or Russian Fleet, or something like that. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
French battleship Richelieu 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) 21:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you keep deleting Information I add to weapons I recently edited. I understand that I would need sources on the info, however I would like yourself to specify why, as I am confident the information is not wrong. 73.183.159.192 ( talk) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey BB I got a message from Tom and he asked me a really hard question. He asked me or I'd like to be a candidate in the coming elections. But I'm not sure. Could you please explain to me more about the co-ordinators? Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Happy 21st July cannot wait for the firework have a nice day. :p Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 10:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The article
French battleship Richelieu 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 battleship Richelieu for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
CPA-5 --
CPA-5 (
talk) 11:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The article
French battleship Richelieu you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:French battleship Richelieu 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) 21:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
French battleship Jean Bart (1940) 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) 22:40, 27 July 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 SMS Friedrich Carl, Normandie-class battleship, HMS Ramillies (07), SMS Nymphe (1863), and Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Royal Sardinian Navy 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
Nick-D --
Nick-D (
talk) 04:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article
French battleship Jean Bart (1940) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:French battleship Jean Bart (1940) 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) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Richelieu-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
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 09:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The article
Richelieu-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:Richelieu-class battleship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 11:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
![]()
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
The article
Richelieu-class battleship you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Richelieu-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
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 01:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The article
Royal Sardinian Navy you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Royal Sardinian Navy 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
Nick-D --
Nick-D (
talk) 08:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
USS Helena (CL-50) 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) 19:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey PB I started to clean-up here and there old FA-class's ships of Sturm and I wondered "maybe I could clean-up PB's old FA-class's ships too if he wants to?" so do you mind if I clean-up your old ships? I just finished cleaning-up Sturm's HMS Lion (1910) and his HMAS Australia (1911). Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 19:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
New Mexico-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) 00:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Alsace-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) 00:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS Helena (CL-50) 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 Helena (CL-50) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
CPA-5 --
CPA-5 (
talk) 19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The article
USS Helena (CL-50) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:USS Helena (CL-50) 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) 20:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that you contributions are very much appreciated. I love reading about naval history and ships in particular, and I always enjoy reading your work. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The article
Alsace-class battleship you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Alsace-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) 17:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The article
New Mexico-class battleship you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:New Mexico-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) 02:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
SMS Nix 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) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
SMS Salamander (1850) 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) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
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 August 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest with 108 points from 11 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 ( talk) 12:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC) |
The article
SMS Nix you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:SMS Nix 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, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't suppose Hildebrand et al's Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe has anything to say about what S13 was doing in between commissioning and the outbreak of the First World War? I can't find any sign in the 1913 or 1914 German navy lists, which suggests that S13 wasn't in any of the normal torpedo boat flotillas. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Nix-class aviso 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) 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
SMS 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
Zawed --
Zawed (
talk) 07:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
The article
SMS Salamander (1850) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:SMS Salamander (1850) 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) 10:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Preussischer Adler 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:SMS Preussischer Adler for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
CPA-5 --
CPA-5 (
talk) 16:41, 8 September 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 Lyon-class battleship, List of battleships of Japan, SMS Medusa (1864), List of battleships of France, and Brandenburg-class battleship. Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC) |
The article
Nix-class aviso you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Nix-class aviso 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, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering or you forgot to add your name in the "candidate" section? Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 20:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Grille you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:SMS 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
Zawed --
Zawed (
talk) 09:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
SMS Loreley (1859) 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) 11:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
SMS Falke (1865) 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) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Falke (1865) 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:SMS Falke (1865) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Peacemaker67 --
Peacemaker67 (
talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Loreley (1859) 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:SMS Loreley (1859) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
CPA-5 --
CPA-5 (
talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Falke (1865) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:SMS Falke (1865) 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) 09:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
SMS Pommerania 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) 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Loreley (1859) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:SMS Loreley (1859) 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) 08:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Pommerania 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:SMS Pommerania for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
CPA-5 --
CPA-5 (
talk) 13:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The article
SMS Pommerania you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:SMS Pommerania 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) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)