User talk:Sturmvogel 66

My Talk Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Military history WikiProject
Articles for review
Featured Article candidates Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan
Featured Article Review Candidates USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England
A-Class Review (Criteria/FAQ) Battle of Plum Point Bend • Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument
Good Article Nominations Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • CSS General Earl Van Dorn
Good Article Reassessments Crusading movement • Golubac Fortress
Peer Review Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers
See the full list of open tasks
v t e

Guess it's time to fill it back up? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, make it so, Number Two!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese destroyer Hinoki (1944) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bréguet 960 Vultur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bréguet 960 Vultur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for placing first in the December 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest with 93 points from 10 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a grand total of 1,193 points from 231 articles throughout the year. An incredible output and an amazing effort. Congratulations! Zawed (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello buddy, I left a reply to you on Talk:Gozo Phoenician shipwreck. Can you please review it? Thank you ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comments from 8 January?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturm, you reserved Talk:Battle of Rethymno/GA1 nearly four weeks ago. Any idea when its number might come up? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article SNCASO Trident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SNCASO Trident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel, I thought it was interesting that you removed the edit that "All woodwork on the USS Dictator was done by Ariel Patterson. You said it was trivial. However, I think it is not trivial because Ariel Patterson was a shipbuilder and had his onw sawmill giving him the reputation for his work as a shipbuilder and wood provider. Patterson and John Ericsson worked together on the steamer Ericson as well as the Dictator. Perhaps you just need a little more information to incorporate it into the article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but generally subcontractors aren't discussed in ship articles as they're far too numerous to be mentioned in the sources. At any rate, infoboxes are a supposed to be summary of the important facts about a ship, if you have sources supporting your addition, feel free to add them to the construction part of the main body. If you don't have any reliable sources, please don't bother.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, about "an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, Gerda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for HMS Princess Royal (1911)! - DYK that my song of defiance which you had the courage to review, finally made it to GA but wasn't on DYK for Bach's birthday yesterday? - We miss Yoninah so much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations to you as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your adding the MILHIST tag - I'm not sure it fits, since it was only intended for civil use? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens to the worst of us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this that I'm not going to change it, I just wanted to explain why I thought "entered into" was better. The rest of the sentence describes things that people did to the ship (or things that happened to the ship): it was built, launched, commissioned, etc. It wouldn't make sense to say "it was entered service", but "it was entered into service" reads fine. I suppose it's minor... it's just how I read the sentence. HarryKernow (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being old-fashioned, my thinking was that it assigned agency to the ship itself, which is always a problem when writing a ship-focused article. Best to try and minimize that sort of thing as much as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. I didn't fully expand on my first thought, but I was under the impression that just "was ... entered"? assigned agency to the ship, while "was entered into" doesn't. HarryKernow (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		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 January 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest with 37 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zawed!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing refbegin/refend markup from bibliographies and other "lists of works", and please reinstate those you have already removed. I understand you feel the use of this template is deleterious to those with poor eyesight, but that would be a fault with the template itself, not the usage of the template. Addressing any fault there should also improve the readability of the automatically generated references generated by reflist. Stgpcm (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What virtue does the template have other than to shrink the size of the text and to set the number or width of columns? And that last usually doesn't work on my large monitor, so what value does it have?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a large monitor, and it works just fine (and looks much better than without it). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a bit of a puzzle for me as to why mine sometimes displays it and sometimes doesn't. I wish it worked more consistently on reflist as I'm always bothered by all the additional whitespace that is usually present with my short citation format. I'd be content if both reflist and refbegin didn't change the text size at all, but am a bit of a loss on how to push for that change to be adopted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary virtue of using refbegin is to mark the section as a list of works. Its secondary virtue is to display such lists in a consistent style. A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described at Template:Reflist#Font_size.

The automatic decision on whether to use multiple columns is - bizarrely - based in the number of entries in the list (20 or more).

On Skylon (spacecraft) the columns option should probably be set, to prevent a mismatch between the references and bibliography, but visual format isn't my thing. Stgpcm (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple header of Bibliography, Sources, etc., which is required by MOS:APPENDIX, is a far more effective way to show the transition to a different section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A tertiary virtue is it allows you to use a formatting gadget to prevent it using smaller text on a per-reader basis, as described at Template:Reflist#Font_size." This sop to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY doesn't actually work on some browsers, unfortunately. But since the check box exists, no one seems to cares that it might not work for the readers who need it. I guess Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY is only there for people with disabilities who can afford the right computer for the options to work? The rest of us with bad eyes can suck it. BilCat (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your efforts on behalf of visually deficient readers such as myself. Your efforts are much appreciated, and perhaps someday will yield fruit. Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? You have the same problem with reflists I presume? It is unfortunate that the feature doesn't work as designed, but the solution isn't removing the logical markup, but fixing the issue in the template/browser. Have you raised the issue on the Template_talk:Refbegin page?

would marking-up everything as a title help you read the pages better? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. As to raising the issue at that talk page, no, I haven't. From discussions I've had about other templates with the same, this appears to be a larger issue affecting my browser type. Those discussions went nowhere fast, so I stopped pursuing it. BilCat (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the refbegin/ends that I've been eliminating have no parameters set at all, and I've never even seen the parameter for setting text size. I can only conclude that editors think that it's some sort of requirement and/or they prefer the look of the reduced-size text. Which puzzles me because virtually every book bibliography I've ever seen uses the same font size for the main text and the bibliography. I understand that people are used to seeing citations and footnotes in a smaller text in most every book and journal, but so what? They do it to cram more information onto a printed page, but we're not paper and why reduce text size when it's not needed and penalizes editors like yourself. I truly do not understand the pushback that I've gotten on this issue, and not just from Stgpcm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. As important as Accessibility issues are said to be to Wikipedia, I don't understand why the standard font sizes aren't the default, with the smaller sizes optional. We know different browsers can have issues, so why make it more difficult on the people who have difficulties instead of the other way around? Large fonts can be annoying, but most people with good eyesight can still read them comfortably, while the reverse is definitely not true. BilCat (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nord Gerfaut you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord Gerfaut for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article SNCASO SO.8000 Narval you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are letters to the editor (which is what the talkback column in Air Enthusiast is) really Reliable sources? Should they be added as references?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should think so since they're approved by the editor. If he knew that they were incorrect, they wouldn't have been published. Most of the ones that I'm adding are corrections or clarifications, somethimes by well-established authorities like F. Gerdessen or Lennart Andersson. That said, I'm adding them so that editors know that they're there. If somebody's expanding the articles and doesn't think that they're useful, they can be moved to further reading or deleted entirely if superceded by more modern research, provided that they've actually been properly evaluated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now edit-warring to force the inclusion of these sources. This is unacceptable - you do not own the article and shouldn't be spamming dodgy sources into articles just to assert that ownership.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about this on the Reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Letters_to_the_editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing AFD discussion that may result in a small amount of content from another article being merged into the aftermath section of the Milliken's Bend article, so it might be best to wait on the GA review until after the AFD is settled. Hog Farm _Talk 19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lemme know whenever that gets resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that's all been resolved with the addition of two sentences into the article, so it's ready now. Hog Farm _Talk 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sud-Ouest Espadon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sud-Ouest Espadon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nord 2200 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord 2200 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask that when creating new sections at the end of articles that you move the Commons link into it as that is where they are meant to be located. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember, but I usually only open a section at a time, so forgive me if I forget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could I ask you please once again to observe the existing placement of Commons links after adding sections? Guidance for the location is at Template:Commons category/doc. The established styles of reference section headers (names and levels) should not be changed without good reason in any case per MOS:NOTES, many forms are acceptable. Leaving these lower sections undisturbed would also avoid the existing Commons links moving up the page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll look through my recent edits and move the commons link to the last section. I generally don't mess with the headers unless they're merely bolded instead of in proper header format. If that's the case I regard them as fair game.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected about 10 instances today, I am very busy in RL so can't check further. Changing to level 2 headers (or adding them) is creating new sections, level 3 would not do that.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some formatting cleanup on that one. I'm attempting a total rewrite of that article, and I'm not familiar enough with the process of writing ship articles to get the desired formatting down perfect. Hog Farm _Talk 15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she's always been on my to-do-list, but I've been deterred by my middling command of the sources on the overall campaign, although I did just buy Chatelaine's new Defending the Arteries of the Rebellion so I can work on more of the Confederate ironclads. Wanna split the work? I'll take on the ship specifics, you deal with the situation and we'll work together on the overlap between the two. I dunno if you've got access to Smith's book, but I do, and it's got all the latest research on the Arkansas. Gosnell's book is a classic, but I'm uncertain how well it holds up and I no longer have it at hand.

Take a look at any of my ship FACs to get an idea of how I typically like organize things. First a brief intro of the situation, then the details of the ship itself, followed by construction info and service. Given that she was built in a warzone, I'm not sure that that structure is actually appropriate for Arkansas. I can work with the article's current structure, though, if you think that that's preferable. Lemme know what you think, although I need to do some reviews that I've promised before I can start serious work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea for a collaboration. I've got access to quite a few books about the Vicksburg campaign. My use of Smith was simply from the rather limited Google books preview, although I think my father might have a copy of it. My opinion of Gosnell is mixed. Some parts of the book are Gosnell's own research, while parts of it are mainly narratives from primary sources. Unfortunately, the content about Arkansas is mainly based on the writings of Captain Brown and two of the ship's lieutenants. That's useful for some things, but I'd rather not have to use Gosnell quoting Brown as much as I've had to. As to structure, the wreck section doesn't warrant its own section. I've got a book about the submarine Hunley somewhere that talks a bit more about the wreck of Arkansas, but all you can really say is that a group of people looked for it, used some old writings to track it down, and found it under a levee. There's just not enough that can be said to support a separate section for it. Hog Farm _Talk 16:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect that we can rely more on Smith and, hopefully, Chatelain, than on Brown and Gosnell, as I'd expect the later writers to have reconciled the differing primary accounts as best they could. I think that the easiest thing to regarding the ship's actions is for you to write it according to what you've got and then I'll go through my sources and point out any discrepancies that we need to resolve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll probably get through it this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it through the Miller, Barnhart, Gosnell, and DANFS. I'll need to go back and change where I used mdy dates instead of dmy dates, though. Looks like the infobox also needs a touchup and the lead probably needs some expansion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'll flesh out the description today and make sure that it matches the infobox. Then onwards to Smith and Chatelaine!

Hog Farm Smith says that the army volunteers came from "three Missouri State Guard 1st Division artillery units: Company A, McDowell Battery (Capt. Drake McDowell, Capt. Samuel S. Harris); Company B, Richardson Artillery (Capt. E.G. Richardson); and Company C, McDonald’s Battery (Capt. Robert McDonald). Under Captains Harris and McDonald, with Lt. John D. Parsons of Co. C of the 5th Infantry Regiment and Lt. John L. Martin from Co. F of the 4th Infantry Regiment" citing Scott K. Williams and James McGhee, “Missourians Aboard the C.S.S. Arkansas,” Sons of Confederate Veterans, Missouri Division, Missouri Units, http:// www. missouridivision- scv.org/mounits/cssark.htm [accessed December 1, 2009]. It is over a decade old, so I haven't altered your text, but thought you should know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have McGhee with me when I pulled the Harris bit from Harris's Missouri Battery (1862). I've got limited access to McGhee's CSA unit monograph again, and he also mentions McDonald's Battery upon another check. However, neither Harris nor McDonald were MSG units at this point; they'd already entered Confederate service. Gosnell calls them cavalry, which is not supported by anything else and is contradicted by him quoting Brown calling them artillerymen. So it may just be best to refer to them as vague Missouri artillerymen. Hog Farm _Talk 17:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arsenal VG 90 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:Arsenal VG 90 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo file states: “This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.” Photographer died in 1930. Orpy15 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irritatingly, that's not exactly how it works. French copyright of 70 years was still in effect when the US adopted the URAA in 1996, which extended the term to 95 years in the US. So you can use it in 2025, not until.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Then I will patiently wait until 2025. Orpy15 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		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 January 2021 Military History Article Writing Contest with 41 points from 4 articles. Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm just posting to let you know that List of battlecruisers of Russia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 2. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damn when did your talk page got shorten? I really believe I've missed this. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turn of the year, turn a new leaf, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How isn't this world news? They had to broadcast this. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• <snicker>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the usage stats? Why cap something that sources mostly don't? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and fix those again if you have nothing to add. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's a proper name. How it is any different than Battle of New Orleans or King of England? Proper names all. End of story.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence shows that the Battle of New Orleans came to be treated as a proper name about a hundred years ago. The King of England evidence is not so simple, but does suggest more often capped than not. As I linked above for the siege of Leningrad, sources paint a very different picture in that case. And our MOS:CAPS says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. So we should use lowercase there. Your assertion that it's a proper name doesn't pass muster. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I see no value added to Wikipedia in your crusade here and would rather you devote your considerable energy to something more generally useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can't know how much that means to me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dare say that your continuing efforts tell me exactly how much that means to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same style, with links to citations. Why do you want citations to be less functional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they use templates in cites, which I despise. Your preference for such links doesn't allow you to override WP:CITEVAR, so please stop changing things to your preferred style. This sort of behavior is exactly why CITEVAR was created. I don't mess with existing styles in the articles that I edit and you should learn to do the same, regardless of whatever improvements in functionality you feel are worthwhile.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And your personal dislike of them does not overule reader-friendliness. RFC created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, but I doubt that you'll like the results.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Leduc 022 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leduc 022 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article SNCAC NC 1080 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SNCAC NC 1080 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does a naval vessel's career begin before or after it is commissioned? 2. Is a vessel commissioned before or after it is constructed? Have a think about that. Pyrope 02:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've entitled the section "construction and career" so it flows quite naturally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't. The active service of a naval vessel only starts after it has been handed over to the operator by the builder. The construction of a vessel is part and parcel of the shipbuilding process, following its specification and design, not its career. Hence that information rightly sits alongside the rest of the information about the physical object, not alongside information about the use to which that object was put. Pyrope 02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Troubles with labor and material shortages that often trouble shipbuilding programs have no part in the design and description section. I see the construction information as the beginning of a ship's career, not least because trials often reveal major problems before the ship can be handed over to the navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start with the fact that the section you are calling "Design and description" is actually a description of its design and specification. Using the word "description" there is spurious. Right, now re-read your above comment again. You state yourself that the construction information covers everything that happens before it is handed over. That may include changes to the design as a result of changing specifications (very common in large vessels that take years to build) or items that are only brought to light in sea trials. Are you then going to start talking about these specification changes there, in the career section? Surely changes in the design are better discussed in a section dealing with its design? Fundamentally, the design and construction of a vessel is a single process involving a fair degree of back-and-forth and ongoing adjustment. The construction of a vessel isn't isn't beginning of its career, but the end of its build. Pyrope 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See French battleship Brennus--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)cal structure.[reply]

What's your point? What you seem to be telling me is that a small group of editors (you?) have written a lot of articles with poor logical flow. Classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. That article also mixes fundamental details of design and construction of the vessel in the same section that contains detailed discussion about manouvers and deployments. These two do not sit comfortably together, and it still splits out details of the physical configuration of the vessel from the main section that covers this subject. Pyrope 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you, Pyrope: why would it make sense to arbitrarily split part of the historical narrative of the ship, then insert a technical description, and then resume the narrative? You seem to be asserting that narrative and technical aspects should not be mixed, unless you want to. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response, it's been a busy week. I am saying that the narrative and technical shouldn't be mixed, at the very least until the vessel has entered service. (Mid-career refits are up for another debate I guess, although I would tend to keep them in the technical section with only brief mention in the career section, but I digress.) Up until that point you are talking about the design and construction process (singular), not the vessel's career. For a human you wouldn't include their family history and schooling under a "career" heading, therefore why would you do the equivalent for a ship? Pyrope 23:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I certainly understand being busy. But what I don't understand is why you are arguing that the narrative shouldn't be interspersed, except for when you want to. The design process is quite distinct from the construction process; why should they be discussed together? Yes, designs are sometimes changed during construction, but they are also frequently changed over the course of a ship's career; what's so special about the commissioning date that anything before somehow doesn't count as narrative, but everything after does?

Your analogy is not apt; what you're actually arguing is to have a section about a person's physical characteristics (i.e., how tall they are, what color their hair and eyes are, etc.) that also includes their childhood and family history, and then a separate section for the details of their biography. In effect, you're arguing that because a person has not grown to maturity until their mid-20s, anything that happened in their lives before that should be considered part of their physical characteristics. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wild garlic

Thank you for having improved an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a GA review! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nord 1500 Griffon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord 1500 Griffon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the term 'consort' is appropriate? Reply here and don't ping. BlueD954 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies equality. Escorts defend their charge and that wasn't Repulse's role in Force Z. The only escorts were a few destroyers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sturmvogel 66:, i don't know how to Review GA could you help pls or revert it. Thanks--Siirski (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? You accidentally started reviews?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66:, Yes i accidentally started reviews. --Siirski (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get that fixed for you. I'm not exactly sure what to do, but I know someone who does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks. - --Siirski (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember offhand that I've ever asked an individual to consider giving me a review at FAC, GAN or FLC, outside my general messages when doing a review (certainly not for years) ... but this is probably the right time to start, and you're a good person to start with :) Caveat: this is outside your (many) wheelhouses, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1, but very little of what needs doing is botany-related. I'm having a specific, temporary problem: the first few lists that need to be done, before anything else can be done, are longer than what FLC reviewers are used to ... and probably for that reason, I haven't received any reviews on this for 3 weeks, even though I've been doing a lot of reviews. Can you help? (Feel free to mention that this review was solicited). - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. I'll try to get to this weekend, but feel free to remind me if I get distracted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just got the start of a third review on this one, from TRM ... sometimes he supports when he's done (in which case I probably won't need a 4th support), sometimes not. If you'd like to wait and see what he does, that works for me ... or, if you've already put some time into this, feel free to keep going. FWIW, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (K–P)/archive1 also needs a support before I can nominate the Q–Z list. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, hold off. TRM isn't happy, so either I'll have to edit these two substantially, or else they won't need reviewing. If things change, I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was too ... well, too much. Too much going on here, and I'm not coping like I usually do. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really am sorry, you didn't deserve that. One thing I've learned is that I can't bring my plant lists to review processes, I don't have enough wiggle-room left with them to allow reviewing to work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was a bit surprised that you withdrew it so quickly, but that was certainly your prerogative. I certainly didn't take offense at any of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, I'm a bit relieved. I realized that I nominated it more out of a sense of obligation than because I wanted to. Btw, I did come up with some edits today in response to your request for links for the professions ... it occurred to me I could mention the professions (the ones that occur in the table) in the intro and in a note at the top of the table and link them once, so that I wasn't forced to repeat the links over and over. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I never thought that you'd need to link every mention because it's not a sortable table, just on the first mention. And only the more obscure professions, which is definitely a judgement call. For me, I'd expect that biologist would be common enough not to require linking, but botanist, mycologist, etc., would need links. But I have a habit of being generous with links and not worrying too much about sea of blue as long as the phrasing reads well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel, I don't know when, but if I can get a few more successful runs at FLC under my belt, I'll try again with the one we've been discussing ... feel free to watchlist it and weigh in or not, whatever you like. I'll do as much as I can on the points you raised before I re-nom it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... after finally giving up and working on my next nom for a few days, some answers that had been eluding me finally came to me. Ain't that always the way. Nomination is now up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change [[Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse] and HMS Prince of Wales (53) I'm fed up!

BlueD954 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How nice for you, but no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting how you've stated how an article's heading was too short in a GA nomination review, yet many of your articles you put forth for nomination are complete and total stubs with hardly any information at all and with and with single black and white image. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 71.54.16.170 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you don't get to blank the results of your failed GA nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally pinned down which Spanish warship rammed and sunk a British steamship on New Year's day 1874, I've added a history section to the Spanish ironclad Vitoria article, which you created. Are you able to expand it further? Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to add her construction information, but I'm uncertain about much past that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've added a bit more info on the ship's activities during the Cantonal rebellion. Greene & Massignani may have further details, but it's no longer viewable in GB and I don't have a copy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a copy. Thanks for the pointer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel, I've seen some of your work. In case it is usefull for you, feel free to serve yourself around there. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might just do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Japanese cruiser Takachiho you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Takachiho for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 24 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arsenal VG 90 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arsenal VG 90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The discussion here leads me to think you might have access to Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1817-1863? I'm currently expanding an article on a naval officer who served through the middle of the nineteenth century but have access only to the previous two volumes of Winfield, leaving the narrative of service with some rather large holes. Would you be able to provide some details from 1817-1862 for me, or if that's not possible perhaps suggest where I might find alternative answers?

Many thanks,

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do, who do you need info on?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything involving Henry Smith would be great, but I'm particularly struggling with his commands of HMS Ganges (1821) and HMS Prince Regent (1823). Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book lacks an index for people, but for Ganges it says she was recommissioned on 1 March 1848 for the Mediterranean and for Prince Regent that Smith assumed command on 7 July 1854 and went to the Baltic in early 1855 (probably a typo for 1854) as she was paid off 16 December 1854 at Portsmouth and remained in Ordinary 1855–1860.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's really useful stuff. Could you provide the page numbers for Ganges and Prince Regent for future reference? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't thinking. Page 13 for Royal George and 28 for Ganges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volume VI of Clowes appears to also have something on Henry Smith - pages 251, 277–279, 281, 284, 288, 296, 549. That might give you something you havn't for yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've used that volume already but thank you for bringing p. 251 to my attention. For whatever reason I ignored it the first time around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Lion-class battlecruiser article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 6, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, about "two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sturm, I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, but as far as I can tell you haven't promoted or demoted a topic at WP:FGTC since December. Since then I've promoted at least 14 topics and its getting a bit much. I mean this sincerely, if the project doesn't interest you, please let Gamer and I know and I'd be happy—I'm sure Gamer would as well—to find a new delegate if need be. There's a lot of director/delegate attention needed for some of these time consuming promotions, and while there is a bot being worked on it may not be ready for some time. Pinging Gamer @GamerPro64:. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging. I've been meaning to bring this up. I wanted more delegates for a reason and I want to make sure about your availability to close nominations. GamerPro64 02:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been procrastinating about a lot of Wiki stuff lately. Lemme see what I can do today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted the Jupiter topic although I think that I forgot to add the oldid to the action. I'll take care of that when I get back from class tomorrow night. I followed User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions, although I'm a bit confused by what he meant by step 7 as I thought that I'd done that as part of step 5 or 6. At any rate, check my work and let me know if I missed anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory when I wrote that step 7 was update the main topic box itself. So if a new article was deemed a part of the topic's scope and the topic is demoted it should be added to main topic box itself usually with the or icon (and the count) or in the case of Jupiter there were not new articles in the scope but the icon for Jupiter was already updated by another editor [1]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arsenal VG 70 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arsenal VG 70 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I noticed you're part of WP:Aviation and like military topics. I'm currently working on the General Dynamics Wikipedia article, there is room for improvement on a few sections. I have a COI with General Dynamics, so I will not edit the article myself but will present conceptual improvements on the talk page. To start, I rewrote the lead paragraph to clarify what the company does. Here is my proposed version. Any thoughts on this? --Chefmikesf (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated the location of the company's HQ, but it looks fine other than that. I'm not very familiar with what's covered in the articles on defense companies, so I really can't tell what ought to be there that's missing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, Thanks for the feedback. I removed the second location and made some updates. The code was different from the post for some reason. My intention for the edits is to simplify the lead in case others wanted to add to it. Would you be open to making the update?--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'd like to check out the articles on a couple of the other major US defense companies. What you have so far is the bare bones of the lede, but I don't know what else should be there. I find ledes the hardest part of an article to write as it's hard to strike a balance between summarizing things and providing too much detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach. As I said, I'm open to additions to the Lead, the intention of this version is to clean it up, remove unnecessary content, and bring attention to this article that needs improvement. Best, Chefmikesf (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your lede over and cut the county from the location. I'd suggest reinstating the bit about the sale of the Fort Worth Division and would also suggest that you rework the bit about the ten companies to cover instead the four main business groups like shipbuilding, aerospace, etc. Go ahead and make those changes and I'll put the article on my watchlist to provide some oversight. Cite #3 needs to be wikified, by which I mean that it needs to be put into one of the various cite formats like cite news, cite web, etc. If you're not familiar with them let me know and I can give you some pointers. Once you're comfortable with doing that you can go ahead and do the same with any other cites that need to be properly formatted. Another thing you could do would be to provide a citation wherever a citation needed tag is located.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, Your suggestions make sense. I'll move this conversation to the General Dynamics talk page, then I'll ping you again once I have these updates drafted. Best --Chefmikesf (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Japanese cruiser Naniwa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Japanese cruiser Naniwa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, just a friendly reminder that you opened this GA review on May 16, and haven't returned to it since. I thought you might have forgotten about it. If you don't think you'll be able to do the review, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true with Talk:Soviet frigate Svirepyy/GA1, which you opened two days earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66 - Thank you for reviewing Third Battle of Winchester. The battle was complicated and the article is long, so I appreciate you making the effort and I glad it is someone with your background. TwoScars (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I saw some historical signs for some of the battles in Winchester, so I figure this will give me a good excuse to learn about at least one of the battles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Glad I learned to use "upright=" instead of "px". TwoScars (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now changing the editors of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships to match your personal preference. Where is the consensus for this change? Or don't you need consensus?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely. I'm changing the cites to refer to the individual chapters and their authors as we should have been doing from the beginning. I'm using the info as given in the books for the editors. The real uncertainty is how to refer to Gardiner who is named as the editorial director over the individual editors. Since he's not listed as an editor per se, I'm chosing to ignore him in the cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you are WP:OWNING these articles, there is little point in arguing with you. As my presence on these articles is not wanted I will not waste any effort on improving them.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, Nigel - it's pretty standard to cite the chapter authors of edited volumes, not just the editors. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are also forcing use of the US edition of Conway's as well, thus prohibiting anyone who only has the UK edition from editing. Congratulations to you both on your efforts to drive me away.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a breath, no one is trying to drive anyone away. One has to pick an edition, and wouldn't you likewise be forcing me to use the UK edition if that's what you cite? It's no different from using a specific new or old edition (Burt's series on British battleships come to mind, as they have markedly different pagination between editions). Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[