User talk:White Shadows

I'm back!

It's good to be back everyone!

That said, learning how to do some coding again (particularly adding in references, among a few other things) is going to take a while...it's like trying to learn how to ride a bike again. So please bear with me everyone, I'm a tad rusty at the moment :)--White Shadows ^{One eye watching you} 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Alt text

Welcome back. Lemme know if there's any help I can give you. FYI, the coding of the infobox picture has changed so that all you have to do is give the file name without specifying size or alt text. I updated the code in Viribus Unitis so you can see what I mean. The old code still works, so you don't need to change anything if you don't want to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Sturmvogel! If there’s any other updates I should be aware of, I’d really appreciate it.—White Shadows ^{One eye watching you} 00:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Refs are now pretty easy if you're not using Visual Editor. Lemme know if you are or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to switch back and forth between code and visual. Is that a big deal or should I stick to one or the other?--White Shadows ^{One eye watching you} 02:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not as much as there used to be, although I believe that visual editor still has a few things that it doesn't handle well. BTW, you're gonna need to validate all the licensing info for your images. Including verifying that the sources for the pictures are still valid. Honestly you've got a lot of images that probably don't meet the sourcing standards because there's no publication information which is needed to establish copyright. Which can be incredibly frustrating, believe me I have the same problem with Japanese and Russian ship photos. Let me know if you've got questions on specific images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of those photos were already in the article. That is definitely an issue I'm going to need help with because while I've got several sources to work with to make this article potential FA material, I've never quite been good at images, even 6 years ago. But how can any of these photos still be copyrighted? They were all taken over 100 years ago, or close to 100 years ago?--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

The problem is proving when they were published as copyright lasts up to 95 years from the date of death of the photographer in some places. So a kid taking a picture in 1918 of one of these ships could have died only 20 years ago and they'd still be in copyright, albeit of his heirs. I couldn't find date of publication of some 1870s Russian photos that I had to pull from a GA a couple years back because it could have only been 50 or 60 years since the photographer had died. Anyways, you have also have to valid licenses for both the country of origin and the US, so I have a current situation where a bunch of Japanese warship photos are out of copyright in Japan, but still in copyright in the US because they were first published in the 70s. So I need to find an earlier publication date to use them, or confirm that they were official IJN photos and thus out of copyright as war booty. So I'd advise you to take a look at some of the recent A and FA-class BB articles and see what tags are being used and how so you can get an idea how everything works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So I'm starting to get to the point where I need to look at the images and video I have on the page, and I still don't know where to start. Copyright has always been something I just don't really understand that well. I've always been a writer at heart and images on Wikipedia are just not my strong suit. Is there anything you can help me with regarding these pictures/videos? I imagine some of them will just have to be taken down, which is fine...but I need to know which ones I can keep and what I can do with them.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

Tegetthoff-class battleship

I was looking at your copy edit request for Tegetthoff-class battleship and noticed this is actually a 5× prose expansion since you started working on 19 January, so I believe it qualifies for WP:DYK promotion on the main page. This is probably its last chance for DYK since it is already a good article. If you're interested, you should nominate it ASAP as it's close to the 7-day limit (though they often make exceptions if nominations are a day or two late). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought the deadline had already passed. I'll submit it right now for a DYK if you think I'll get it though. Thank you!--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

I've submitted it. If there's anything you'd like to do to help, you can find it at Template:Did you know nominations/Tegetthoff-class battleship. Thanks!--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

I'm not sure exactly when they count an expansion to be "completed" but it seemed like you were still adding to it until your copy edit request. I'm going to work on a copy edit of the article and will try to keep an eye on the DYK, though I won't be able to give it much attention until the week of the 24th. It may be a while before there is a DYK review. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 copy edit

You asked for some feedback on the writing style so let me start with that. You kept to the facts and stayed pretty encyclopedic, but watch for some of the superlatives like famous admiral and celebrated ships and finally accomplishing something, which aren't quite NPOV. With New railroads had recently been constructed through Austria's Alpine passes between 1906 and 1908 it's unnecessary to say "recently" when also giving the year range, and "recently" is problematic when describing events from more than 100 years ago. Material repeated itself a bit in places, which is understandable when you're building an article and aren't yet sure where all the pieces fit. I found it an interesting read, and I appreciated the care with conversion templates and alt text for images.

Here are some notes and questions after my first pass of the article:

• The article was a bit long at 11,174 words of prose. I tried to make the prose a little more concise and removed some bits where it repeated itself, bringing this down to 10,580 words. When articles exceed 10,000 words it is recommended to split the content into multiple articles, but I've seen GAs above 10,000 words before.
  • This is certainly a long article, but I've seen longer ones before that have become FAs. Again, my final goal with all of this is to get this article to FA status, but prior to getting there I think bringing it up A-class is a good first step.
• The article seems to use American spellings so I marked it for American engvar. (This makes it a little easier for the next copy editor and possibly for any bots or autowikibrowser users.) I also marked it for dmy dates which you tend to have with European and military articles. (There was a single md date in the lead which I changed June 10 → 10 June.)
  • Thanks for sorting that out. I'm an American though unfortunately many of these articles use British English for obvious reasons. If this is something that needs to be changed further down the road I doubt it'll be an issue for us to switch the spelling and grammar back.
• I was wondering if the ships should have an SMS prefix on first mention, but this seems to also be used by the German navy.
  • SMS is basically German for "His Majesty's Warship". It was used in both the German and Austro-Hungarian Navies. The formal title of each ship in the class was SMS Viribus Unitis, SMS Tegetthoff, SMS Prinz Eugen, ect. It's standard practice to drop the "SMS" bit though for the body of each article, though I have no objections to having the SMS prefix appear on the first mention for the reasons you pointed out.
    • Looks great!
• There was a little bit of overcapitalization. Except for proper nouns, titles don't get capitalization unless directly attached to a person's name (MOS:JOBTITLE). Section headers and table headings get sentence case.
  • Some titles I thought needed capitalization. For example, "Chief of the Naval Section of the War Ministry" was an actual title in the Austro-Hungarian Navy, and the "Naval Section of the War Ministry" was a formal office. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had no separate ministry of the navy because of internal politics. I've restored those bits simply because they're formal titles and offices but if you think that MOS:JOBTITLE requires no capitalization here, I have no issues changing it back to your edits. I do however think the office needs to be brought up because the Naval Section of the War Ministry was the formal name of the office which oversaw the Austro-Hungarian Navy. I appreciate fixing the other examples of overcapitalization such as the section headers.
    • If the title itself is a proper noun, then it is capitalized. On its own, "president" doesn't get a capital but "President of the United States of America" does. It becomes a little tricky when the titles are translated. Proper nouns are generally retained in the mother language and don't get translated. (Like using Regia Marina instead of translating it as royal navy.) To some extent, the act of translating the title makes it generic. It's a bit of a judgement call. Ultimately, and with a bit of common sense, Wikipedia follows use in reliable sources over whether something is a proper noun (including translations). Since you're familiar with the sources I'll leave that assessment to you. Currently it looks pretty good to me.
• There are a few different places where the article talks about the cost and funding for the battleships. I feel it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of putting all of this information into its own section, so it's addressed in one place and doesn't repeat itself or have tangential information in the existing sections.
  • I actually explored that option myself when writing the article. The problem I ran into was that I had nowhere to place it without making things feel disjointed and out of place. Discussions over funding and budgets were part of the entire process of the design, approval, and construction of the battleships. By creating a new section for just funding and budgets, I feel like I'll be leaving other equally important sections without any real substance, or I may leave them in a very confusing state to the reader.
  • That said, I'm still definitely open to the idea. I'm just not sure how to write it in a way that doesn't subtract from the other important sections about the lead up to the construction of the ships.
    • It may be too big a part of the equation to move it. Giving it another read, I feel it's good now (with those redundant parts trimmed).
• The section General characteristics has a paragraph that began In addition to the number of shafts and turbines but this is a little confusing as the propulsion isn't addressed until the following section. I removed those words for now, but it might be worthwhile to consider a little reorganization.
  • This was a case of my repeating myself...in this instance, before I had even gotten to the point. The difference in shafts and turbines is covered in the propulsion section where it belongs. This was an unneeded phrase that I'm happy you removed.
• Is it normal to give artillery size in calibre? I was thinking that 45-calibre and 50-calibre might be confused with .45-calibre and .50-calibre small arms.
  • Caliber and gun size are both covered in the armament section. I don't see how anyone could confuse a massive 12-inch naval gun with a .45 caliber pistol, but if this is an issue that comes up when I submit this article for an A-class review I have absolutely no problem cutting those bits out and just leaving the gun size in.
    • OK. It does have the sizes and if a reader is curious about it they can follow the link.
• This armor belt between the midpoints of the fore and aft barbettes I think this clause is missing its verb.
  • Good catch. Re-wrote to say "This armor belt was located between the..."
    • Thanks. I figured it was something like that, but I'd have been guessing.
• In the Armament section, it says that the Tegetthoffs were the first dreadnoughts with triple turrets, but in Assembly it says the Dante Alighieri was the first. I feel that the whole sentence in the Assembly section could be struck as it's covered earlier (assuming the earlier statement is correct).
  • This is an oddity. So the Tegetthoffs were the first dreadnoughts to be launched and commissioned to have triple turrets (and also the first to be designed as such but I have no citations to back that up ATM). The Italians heard about the design of the Tegetthoff-class so they acted very quickly and had the Dante Alighieri laid down in Italy before a single ship from the Tegetthoff-class was able to even get government funding. That said, the construction on the Tegethoffs took place very quickly, and the Viribus Unitis was launched before the Dante Alighieri had been finished, despite being laid down later. This made the Viribus Unitis the first dreadnought battleship in the world to have triple turrets, and thus it made her class the first in the world to have them as well.
    • The facts all seem to line up even if you don't have a source that explicitly states it. I went ahead and struck that sentence.
• 75% of the coal purchased for Austria-Hungary's came from Britain I just want to check if this meant "for Austria-Hungary's navy" or for the empire in general.
  • I meant to say "Austria-Hungary's navy". Good catch.
• I'm not quite sure how these two sentences relate: Horthy used these first few months as Commander-in-Chief to finish his re-organization of the navy. As one of Njegovan's final actions before he was ousted entailed shifting several smaller and older vessels around to different ports under Austro-Hungarian control, the only ships which remained at port in Pola aside from the three of the Radetzky-class were the four dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff-class, which had now fallen under the command of Captain Heinrich Seitz. Was Horthy's reorganization made to reverse some of Njegovan's deployments, or was he making further changes in line with them? "As" can have a double meaning here, either "because" or "while", so that might also benefit from a rephrasing.
  • Your first point was the correct one. Horthy was undoing the reorganization that his predecessor initiated, and worked to consolidate as many ships in one port as possible for the eventual mass-attack on the Otranto Barrage that he had planned, as well as maintain the Austro-Hungarian Navy's threat to the Allied powers as a fleet in being. I have clarified that a bit in the article.

Get back to me when you can and I'll do another run through the prose. I don't mind if you want to revert any of my changes. Please also let me know if you have any questions or comments, and please reply with {{ping|Reidgreg}}. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, thank you so much for your help! I'll try to go point-by-point below to the changes you made and my thoughts on them. Overall, I greatly appreciate the work you've done. You caught several mistakes I made when writing this article. You can see my comments above underneath each of your points. Thanks! --White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

You're welcome! From my own experience I know it's easy to overlook things in ones own writing, especially with longer articles.

A few additional notes:

• Regarding layout, since there is a section called "Service history", what would you think of renaming the first "History" section to something like "Background"?
• the class comprised of I had to think about this one. I believe this should be either "was comprised of" or simply "comprised" (without the "of").
• This was too late for her to take part in the Bombardment of Ancona though the remaining ships in the class saw action immediately following Italy's declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915 To better show the relationship between the first and second parts, what would you think of changing "though" to "where" or "in which"?

I want to do some more copy editing this week, but have watch-listed your DYK and will try to keep an eye on it. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• • I like those suggested changes. I’ve already switched “History” to “Background” and I’ll be following up with the rest of the changes when I get a chance to do so.—White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

DYK ineligible

Hello! I'm reviewing the nomination, and it appears that the process of expansion began on May 26th, while the article was nominated for DYK on June 16th, twenty-one days later. The deadline for an article to be "new enough" for DYK is seven days, and while the rule is sometimes bent for new nominators, I don't think we can stretch it by a factor of three for an experienced editor. Thank you for your work improving the article, however! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there no way an exception can be made? This article has grown tremendously in the past month and there will never again be a chance for it appear as a DKY. I feel like we're missing an opportunity here for something to appear as a DKY simply because I took a bit more time to expand it than usual. This is generally something I dislike about DKY as a whole of course...that 7 days is a very short time frame to expand an article by a factor of 5, but that's of course a discussion for another time.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

Sorry about that. The rule expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles doesn't really get into where you count the seven days from (the beginning or end of the expansion process) until you dig a few pages deeper when it gets into how to do the word counts to calculate a 5× expansion. That's too bad, it pretty much rules-out any mainspace collaborations. If you want to appeal, I believe the correct forum is Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Oh, maybe mention that you have a cc-licensed video to go with the second hook. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, White Shadows. I'm just posting to let you know that List of battleships of Austria-Hungary – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 27. 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) 21:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Novara-class cruiser ready for GT!

Parsecboy, Sturmvogel, I just wanted to let you both know that Novara-class cruiser just passed a GAR today. That means the entire class is ready for a GT nomination. Thought I'd reach out to both of you since you two helped to write the individual ship articles.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on that article. On the GT, I've stopped doing them for individual ship classes (generally because it makes more work for the FT/GT delegates) and instead just wait to do one topic for the overall topic (I have one mocked up here, by the way). Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Next on my list for cruisers is Admiral Spaun. I've got enough material on the ship to get it to GA status quite easily...just need the time to edit it. I also have a draft article for the Zenta-class...but each ship was unique which makes that article a bit more tricky to tackle.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 21:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

SS Yarmouth DYK ineligible

I do'nt understand this. I'm not procedurally knowledgeable to understand what has happened here. I started writing the article in draft on June 3d, The new page was created on July 19 or so I thought. On June 3rd onwards you can see the draft article header at the top of the edit box. In my contributions page you can see on 19 July 15:26 Draft SS Yarmouth being moved SS Yarmouth. I don't understand this or how to interpret it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:SS_Yarmouth&action=history . In my genuine ubnderstanding it was draft right up to 19 July. What to do? Broichmore (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this I'm certain the article was Draft:SS Yarnmouth all the way through yet the history indicates something different. I don't understand why being incomplete from 3rd June it was never pounced on (when it could have been) for speedy deletion in a 6 week period? Regards. Broichmore (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Novara-class cruiser

On 27 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Novara-class cruiser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Novara-class cruisers (SMS Novara pictured) were the largest warships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy to be used by the victors of World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Novara-class cruiser. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Novara-class cruiser), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Austro-Italian ironclad arms race at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Novara-class cruiser Good Topic?

Now that Novara-class cruiser is a Good Article, do you plan to nominate it (with SMS Saida, SMS Helgoland, and SMS Novara) as a Good Topic? Chris857 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I was planning on doing so but the other editors who worked on the articles for the ships of the class @Parsecboy: and @Sturmvogel 66:, said they're waiting to just nominate the entire List of cruisers of Austria-Hungary as a Good Topic instead.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State secret (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR

Hi there. Participation over at WP:AfD is also a great way to catch up on policy changes and re-hone notability knowledge. I've put the notability guide box, which has some useful links, in particular, WP:NCORP has been completely rewritten rather recently, so definitely check that one out. Cheers and hope to see you over at New Page Patrol. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Insertcleverphrasehere:!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Austro-Italian ironclad arms race

Hey White Shadows, here's some comments for you. (I'm sorry for the short length—I accidentally closed my window and lost everything I'd been typing.)

• I added this, to show why the two were building ships, but please check for accuracy/support in sources. "These ships were constructed to establish control over the Adriatic Sea in the event of a conflict between the two countries."
  • This is very much an accurate statement. I'm pretty sure the body of the article spells out that Austria and Italy were vying for supremacy in the Adriatic as well.
• I also shortened/simplified the lead as much as I could. Please feel free to tweak/revert. :-)
  • Just needed to add in the word "the" in-front of "Austrian Empire"! Everything else seems good. I appreciate the edits!
• Where is the textual/source support for this? "... as the Italians believed that a strong navy would play a crucial role in making the recently unified kingdom a great power."
  • I have a few quotes from sources used in the article to back this claim up. Sondhaus' 1989 book states on pages 221, "Caugia took office at the peak of pro-navy sentiment with the public applauding an appeal by a new commission of admirals for a huge fleet of forty armored warships." Earlier, on page 206, Sondhaus states, "Cavour made a dramatic appeal to the Chamber of Deputies in Turin for an extraordinary grant of twenty million lire (around eight million florins) for naval construction and the establishment of an Adriatic base at Ancona."
    • But neither of those mention making Italy into a great power... I may be missing something, but it's my impression that this arms race was for control over the Adriatic, not to become (a) great power(s). :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• On a broader note, quite a bit of the article isn't directly about the arms race. That's not a criticism per se, but it does contribute a lot to the overall length of this article, which is over 17,000 words. I wonder if you could move some of the content you have here to other articles, maybe the articles on those navies, and summarize the content in this one?
  • I'd have to be given some examples for this. I know the background seems lengthy but I really tried to summarize it as best as possible. I really think the revolutions of 1848 is the appropriate starting point to cover the background which led to the unification of Italy and the establishment of the Regia Marina. Likewise, Austria's hostile reaction to Italy's unification, and Italian desires to incorporate Italian-speaking parts of the Austrian Empire only helped to fuel the arms race even more, while major technological developments like the news of the Battle of Hampton Roads directly influenced both nation's decisions to continue with ironclad production. I'll admit it's a bit on the long side, but that's in part because Italy and Austria laid down their first ironclads around 1860, and the arms race between the two nations continued up to the signing of the Triple Alliance in 1882. That's a 20-year period to cover!
    • I hope you didn't take that critically! It wasn't meant like that at all. I don't really have many specific examples (outside the "Garibaldi's campaigns in Southern Italy" section, which seems like it could be covered in only a couple sentences [for the purposes of this article] and merged with the previous section). It was just a feeling I had after finishing the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• On sectioning. I'd expect a "Financial impact on the arms race" (is that supposed to be "of"?) section to take a broad look at the financial impact, sort of like a legacy section. But it really only covers a few years in the 1860s, with anything after that left to the "Developments of the 1870s and 1880s" ... where ironclads were ordered, and so the arms race was still continuing, no? (I'm a little confused. :-) ) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I should probably rename that section. That is intended to cover the financial impact of the arms race during its first phase (1860-1866 when the Battle of Lissa took place). In the "Developments of the 1870s and 1880s", I included another look at finances during the second stage of the arms race which took place after the Third War of Italian Independence. I wanted to keep financial discussions tied to the time-frame they took place, rather than placing them at the bottom of the article, because finances weren't a secondary issue in the arms race (unless you're Italy between 1860 and 1866, who just blew millions of Lira they didn't have to construct a massive fleet). Austria for example had to look at financial questions every time another ironclad was being considered. The money aspect wasn't an abstract thing to gloss over at the end of the article IMHO, it's a key issue that would best be presented in the middle of the article. That said, you have a good point about confusing people. I didn't write the article for myself, I wrote it for readers...and if readers are getting confused, that's something that needs to be addressed.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Renaming would take care of it. Like, I was surprised to find the same sort of financial graphs outside of the section I thought they would be in. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Austro-Italian ironclad arms race

Hello! Your submission of Austro-Italian ironclad arms race at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! IronGargoyle (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Austro-Italian ironclad arms race

On 23 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Austro-Italian ironclad arms race, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Austro-Italian ironclad arms race led to the Battle of Lissa, the first naval engagement between multiple armored warships? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Austro-Italian ironclad arms race. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Austro-Italian ironclad arms race), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Same day on the front page as my baby Ludwigsburg Palace. Coincidence, or providence? –Vami_IV† 08:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• That’s pretty neat. Congrats on the DYK and GA!—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 12:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the inadvertent tip!

In doing the image review for the Ersatz Monarch class, I learned that the Shipbucket files are covered by CC 4.0, so we can use them here. Now I've got to go mine all the images I can find ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind - on looking more closely, the images are the CC4.0 Non-commercial license, which we can't accept. Going to have to add that to the image review, unfortunately Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia counts as a commercial enterprise?—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 12:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, but we can't accept licenses that restrict use for commercial purposes (see WP:NONCOM and WP:F3). Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Could we still use them under WP:FAIRUSE?--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 15:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Admiral Spaun

On 28 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SMS Admiral Spaun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Austro-Hungarian cruiser SMS Admiral Spaun (pictured) escorted his body back to Trieste? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SMS Admiral Spaun. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, SMS Admiral Spaun), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello WS. I want to thank you for your fair, thoughtful and measured response at the RFA. I have seen everything you mention happen over the years. I would never have been able to put it into such a concise paragraph. Thanks again and best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Smullers

Hello White Shadows. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Smullers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: owned by NS Stations which indicates significance (also cf. WP:ATD-R). Thank you. SoWhy 07:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at the article now, that makes sense. When I saw and tagged it, it was just one line.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 12:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire, and List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary. MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)