User talk:Bellhalla/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bellhalla. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Operation: Trailblazer
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
| For your oustanding efforts during Operation Trailblazer, culminating in the 2009 Featured Topic nomination for the Iowa-class battleships, the passage of which resulted in the first ever Wikipedia Featured Topic concerning ships exclusively, I herby present you with The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help, this is as much your Featured Topic as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
Connecticut
We did it, my friend! Thanks for your help throughout - it was invaluable! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
GAN for Doug Ring in 48, Second Test in 48
Hi Belhalla. Thanks for the review. I have attended to your queries on both articles. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Austro-Hungarian submarines
Next time give a hint if you need fast GA reviews because you're running the articles in the contest departement. Still, A-class reviews with fewer articles might be the better choice. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The only contest I participate in is the Military history writing contest, and there, B-Class scores the same as GA-Class, so, really, I have no need for a fast GA review. But, I do thank you for the reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Endurance}}-related question
I might have what you were after. JIMp talk·cont 11:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Q ships
Regards your question, see Thomas Crisp, which I took to FA two years ago. Regarding Q-ships in general, I'd be happy to help with any questions you may have or any articles which could use more details.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Day before month in US military articles
Treating the US military as a separate nationality opens up a can of worms. I don't disagree that most American civilians will be able to figure out day-month formats, it's the level of comfort they should be afforded while reading about where all their tax money has gone. ;-) As for the can of worms, it seems to me that SS Iowan should use month-first dates, as her period of service in the US military was less than two years of her 55-year career, and most of the article's text describes her civilian service. Are bios of generals covered under "articles on the modern U.S. military"? If so, would Colin Powell's article use day-month when he was a retired general, then be eligible for conversion to month-day after he became Secretary of State? What about air bases that also include Census-Designated Places, which are actually civilian towns? As for the first editor's prerogative to set the date style, many of these articles were simply scraped off external web pages, with three apostrophes added before and after the subject name to bold it. They're mostly a far cry from scholarly work. Should these editors get to claim their style for life, forgetting about "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ..."? It seems to me that the line about US military articles inserted in the MoS may have been a way to assuage the consciences of the editors who have left these behind. When I see dates like 02 AUG 44, I change to August 2, 1944, since this is an encyclopedia, not a ship's log (unless, of course, it's a quotation from a ship's log). I have been cleaning a lot of these up, and I don't see a lot of other editors cleaning them up. Why should they fight me when I do it? Chris the speller (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Co-review
Hi Bellhalla
Want to co-review Second Persian invasion of Greece? It has been a massive series on the Greco-Persian Wars I had to review recently and I would welcome it if they didn't all show only my concerns. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll have a chance to take a look at it later today. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Bellhalla. Thanks a lot for your info! Frankly, after almost three years in Wikipedia, I was completely unaware of non-breaking spaces! :( Best regards.--Darius (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
.png)
|
The Military history A-Class medal with Oak Leaves | |
| By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for your contributions to U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary), U-20 class submarine, and SM U-68, all promoted to A-Class in February 2009. Kirill [pf] 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
Leonardo
Leonardo, and several other Renaissance painters, are known by their Baptismal names and ought not be sorted by "surnames". These include Giotto, Raphael and Michelangelo. Other artists of the same period are known by nicknames and should be sorted accordingly. These include Uccello, Botticelli, Perugino, Donatello and Tintoretto. In a few cases the artist is known by his first name and a parent's name eg Piero della Francesca. "della Francesca" is not a surname and he shouldn't be sorted under it. He is "Piero, son of Francesca".
Amandajm (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I knew there were some particulars about names of that era, so I copied the
{{DEFAULTSORT:}}from the article. Please feel free to change either or both as you see fit. My aim was for the article to appear somewhere other than under "T" in Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
WPGERMANY
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Replied there. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
GA Review of Walter Oesau
Hello Again!
I am genuinely glad to see you as the reviewer. I will definitely make every attempt to address the concerns raised in the review. However at this time I have a bit spotty wiki-time, due to other preoccupations. I am going to make a point of trying to address at least one point a day. But that's stretch. I hope you will be considerate. I am afraid I can offer may be 15 days as my deadline. I am sorry I just can't offer anything concrete. Perseus71 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. Keeping the article on hold won't be a problem. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I even surprise myself! All the feedback is incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
A-Class discussion
Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Flag size for i-boxes?
Hi Bellhalla. Where does it say that 100x35px is the standard flag size for infoboxes? I tried to look at Template:Infobox Ship Begin/doc, but all I found there was the 60px thing at the talk page. Also, the various ships with flags I've been looking at have 60px as their flag sizes. Is this a new standard, and where can I find it? Manxruler (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the featured ship articles, all I find is that they too have 60px as their flag sizes. I'm starting to think this whole 100x35px deal is wrong. I'm reverting it until I see some rule that says otherwise. Manxruler (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns lists/displays flags suitable for ship infoboxes and has all of the flag sizes set at 100x35px, where they have been set since March 2008. Because the wiki markup for file/image sizes is specified as width and many flags have differing widths/aspect ratios, setting the width at "60px" creates this sort of disparity:
- The "100x35px" size is not a requirement, but does provide a more visually consistent look to the flags
Ah, I see. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured pictures:
New featured topics: New A-Class articles:
| ||
| |||
| |||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Liberty ships problem
You may be interested in this issue: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Large_article_won't_load. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| I hereby present you with the WikiChevrons for your excellent effort (11 articles, 77 points) in the March 2009 Military history WikiProject Contest. Great job! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
USS LSM-149
G'day. I was going through the list of ships sunk in World War II and came across USS LSM-149. I have discovered that while the LSM did broach ie. turned sideways to oncoming waves, it did not sink at Sansapor, New Guniea (30-31 July 1944). It would appear that LSM-149 was grounded off the Phillipines on 5 December 1944. [1] & [2] Your thoughts? If agree I will update page and list. Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The U.S. Navy Historical Center and Cressman's Chronology are both reliable sources, so it would appear that what you found is most likely what happened. I would recommend changing the article, but including the fact that the landing ship's fate is also presented as in the article currently. ("According to the United States Navy [this happened on this date], but her fate has also been reported as [that on that date].") Good luck with your editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
50 DYK Honors
|
The 50 DYK Medal | |
| I hereby bestow this honor to you on the occasion of crossing the 50 DYK mark. Your efforts to create quality articles on military and passenger ships and submarines is greatly appreciated and has been a beneficial addition to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Best wishes on your achievements to date and keep up the great work. 100 is not too far away and the second 50 articles are much easier than the first 50. Congratulations! Alansohn (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
So that crappy message I gave before didn't seem enough....
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your efforts in helping me improve USS Connecticut (BB-18) to FA-status. I honestly don't believe that I would have gotten it there without you. I don't know how else to say this, but "thank you thank you thank you ad infinitum". :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
Hate can't describe my feelings...
:D —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- FYI - my feelings haven't changed... :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did that just for your benefit, ed… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- *Sigh* Not like I thought I had a chance anyway... ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did that just for your benefit, ed… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Duh Vinci
It's Da Brownish. Amandajm (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK! Since the BBC habitually refers to the man as da Vinci, I am going to suppress any further negative feelings that I have about this and let him be da Vinci for ever more! Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Upcoming elections
Just another reminder, but please give serious thought to standing for coordship in the upcoming elections. You'd be a real asset :) – Roger Davies talk 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do I need to be nominated by someone other than myself, or is a self-nom acceptable? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Self-noms only. We try to keep the elections fairly low key. The rules have changed this year to open up the field: basically a minimum of eight and maximum of fifteen coordinators. The jobs will go to everyone getting twenty votes or more, to a maximum of fifteen appointments. – Roger Davies talk 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The coordinator election pages are now all set up. Feel free to nominate yourself here. — Roger Davies talk 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
GAN for SS Merion
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Inverlyon
I've added a bit more info on Jehan - for your general fund of knowledge all substantive British decorations are recorded in the London Gazette, which provides the official record of award, searchable here, using the search I did for Jehan as an example. His service record, (or some of it at least) is also online, [3], come Monday I'll be able to check it out free fo charge and see if there's anything else useful in there. David Underdown (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at the service record - it confirms the date of the action as 15 August 1915. I could add more detail about long he'd been in the Navy and so on if you'd think taht useful (unfortunatley a lot of the record isn't particularly easy to read. From the service records [4] it look sas if he may have had a twin brother, who was also awarded the DSC and specially commissioned from warrant rank, whilst unsual, I'm not quite sure it raches notable though. David Underdown (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- How would one go about citing the service record to support the date of the action (since the one source has the apparent error)? Also, I agree with you about the twin brother: not likely notable, but certainly interesting that both one the DSC. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- When I've cited other service records I've tended to do something along the lines of: {{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7912788|title=RN officers' service records—Image details—Jehan, Martin Ernest|work=DocumentsOnline|publisher=[[The National Archives]]|format=fee required to view full pdf of original service record|accessdate=10 March 2009}} David Underdown (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review of German Type UB I submarine
I have been through the article and left some comments on the GA review page. Please address these at your convenience. If you have any comments/questions please leave them there or on my talk page. Thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a few additional comments for you to have a look at. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have added the article to the GA list. Thanks for your edits. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Help with copyediting requested
Hello Bellhalla ! There is an ongoing FAC nomination for the Byzantine navy article, and a reviewer has remarked that the article would need a copyediting from a native-language editor. I saw on WPMILHIST/Logistics that you are available, and since you're one of the most nautically-minded editors around here, I am asking for your help. I don't know whether you have time or interest (it's a rather long article) but if you could give it a look, that'd be great. If you can not, please let me know so that I can contact other editors. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I can take a look. It may later today or tomorrow before I get to it. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your help. The remaining issues you have raised have (I think) been addressed. As an aside, what do you think of the article itself? Would you be prepared to support its FAC? Regards, Constantine ✍ 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for SM UB-3
|
On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-3, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
DYK for SS Merion
|
|
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Merion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Shubinator (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
SS Merion question
I enjoyed reading the article about Merion; good job! Although I've read a bit about the Great War, especially naval, I've never heard of the disguise-the-freighter-as-a-capital-ship scheme. Could you tell me anything more about it? It just sounds like one of those it's-a-silly-idea-but-we-have-no-choice plans, like Q-ships, that did something but not a lot. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I've been working on German Type UB I submarine articles and came across a hint of the info on Merion from Uboat.net, so I was intrigued. A Google Books search turned up several books that seem to discuss the project, but regrettably, most have no previews available. As I understand it, there were some 15 to 20 liners that were converted, but only(?) Merion was sunk; the plan was only in effect for about a year. I think the main idea was a disinformation campaign to make the Royal Navy look even more formidable than it already was. Other than that, I don't have much more information to add. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking for sources
I was thinking of expanding the article on the US Navy fleet oiler USS Neosho (AO-23), perhaps bringing it up to FA-standard if I can find enough information. I haven't worked on an article involving an auxiliary ship of the US Navy before. Would you know of any book titles or other sources of information that I might look for which might have information on this ship's history? Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- No Big Book of Navy Auxiliaries that I know of, but here are some suggestions for research angles:
- Obviously from the article, the DANFS entry has been used, but often I've found that other ships' DANFS entries can sometimes have other useful information, too. The USN Historical Center (I can't ever remember what their new name is) will sometimes have extra things beyond DANFS, too. (Google search.)
- the HyperWar site at ibiblio.org often has an assortment of primary and secondary sources for WWII topics. A google search turns up Neosho's action report from her sinking, and from the Pearl Harbor attack
- I'd also suggest books on the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battle of Coral Sea, too. A Google Books search for Coral Sea turns up several that look promising.
- Newspaper searches for the building, launching, commissioning timeframe might be helpful, too. Also, according the GlobalSecurity.org, Neosho was the world's largest oil tanker at the time of her launch.
- Good luck on the research and writing. I'll be happy to answer any other questions. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's very helpful thankyou. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for SM UB-2
|
|
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-2, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Q ships again
- Hello
- I saw this conversation, which raised an issue for me. I’ve posted a question at the Tom Crisp talk page: You may like to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Elections
Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I hope you Make it! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 04:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for HM Armed Smack Inverlyon
|
|
On March 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HM Armed Smack Inverlyon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you for your many efforts to improve Wikipedia! Royalbroil 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for SM UB-4
|
|
On March 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article [[Royalbroil 12:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)]], which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Congrats on the double play. Royalbroil 12:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review of Walter Oesau
I think you want to check the review page. All issues had been addressed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Coordinator Elections
It seems we have our third official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
April Fools DYK
Yep, I'm interested as it'll give me 3 articles on that day. What ship did you have in mind? Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- With a name like that, it's gotta have an article! You're on! Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you know... that there was a third lesbian? Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- What about going for the triple? - Did You Know... that John Ellerman had not one, not two, but three lesbians? Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't find much info on the first Lesbian, but there is a book source which may have further info. I've put an appeal out on WT:SHIPS, so we might get enough info to make a big enough article on her. If not, we can still go for that hook, but with only two bolded. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
GAN for SM UB-16
Hi, Belhalla. I just reviewed the article; everything looks good to me, so I passed it. There is one minor issue on wording, so please check the talk page. Nice work! Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Batavia Line
I had a look but it's too small to see. The key words you need are vertrek (departure) and aankomst (arrival). Am busy with HMS Archer (D78) atm. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the Dutch generally use the 24 hour clock. Otherwise morgen for morning, middag for afternoon and avond for evening. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've had another study of the image. Can just about make out Ver. (abbreviation of vertrek) and Aankomst so it looks like you are right. Seems to give times train leaves London to connect with the ship. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
HMS Archer (D78)
Would you look the article over and maybe reassess it. How close do you think it is now to GA class? (would be my fist GA if we can get it there). 19:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The lead is a little short, but beyond that, it's pretty close. Go and nom it! You've got nothing to lose. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK twofer
|
|
On 19 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles SS Tubantia, and SM UB-13, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Army ships with USS prefix
Message added J JMesserly (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- replied there — Bellhalla (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
barnstar
Thank you, though I can't really take credit. I didn't make the image, I just found it on Commons. It is pretty neat, though. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
SM UB-11
Hi there, Whilst idly flicking through the current Good Article nominations, I noticed a couple of problems in the lead of SM UB-11, and thought I'd give you a quick heads-up.
The problems are:
- She sank eleven ships during her career and was broken up in Germany in 1920 (1st para)...UB-11 was used as a training vessel throughout the war; she made no war patrols and sank no ships (3rd para).
- At the end of the war, UB-2 was deemed unseaworthy and unable to surrender at Harwich with the rest of Germany's U-boat fleet.(3rd para)
Hope this helps, Regards MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh... rats. I was adapting some text from SM UB-2 and must have pasted the wrong version. Thanks for the heads up. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ...
... which is the politically correct way of saying that I stole your idea of using an em dash in my .sig [5]. As if we needed it, but it is yet more proof of Bellhalla's awesomeness! — Kralizec! (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hahaha I agree with Kralizec :))) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)