User talk:Parsecboy

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.

	This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.
	If my main talk is protected due to vandalism, please leave comments here.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/HMS Royal Oak (08)

Nate, I've just started scheduling TFAs (and loving it). I prefer to schedule as many with anniversaries as I can; I think that's one way to demystify the process. Before the end of the year, I'm going to go on a massive hunt for date-relevant articles ... but for the moment, all I've got for Nov 17 is this one. It's a really interesting article, and it would be great to get another British ship into November. Do you know if anyone has worked on this since the failed TFAR two years ago? - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I know Jason did a fair bit of work on the description section, but I think that's about it. The section on WWI needs quite a bit of work - I'm in the middle of bringing SMS Kaiser Friedrich III up to snuff, but after that I can shift gears and at least get to the WWI bits. I know Jason is working on the Africa de-stub-athon, so I don't know that he'll really want to take the time to do much more on Royal Oak.

@BillC: is still active, and will probably be interested in getting us over the finish line too. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Great. I've got some TFA scheduling to do today and the TFA bots are cranky; I have to at least put an article title up in each TFA slot. I'll use Royal Oak for the 17th, but I'm not pressuring you to get it done, this is just my best wild guess at the moment for what will wind up there so that I can move on and schedule other days. If it looks like Royal Oak won't make it, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good - I have another three pages or so to translate for Kaiser Friedrich III. Hopefully that'll be finished by early next week, and then I can get to work on Royal Oak. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I help? Can you email me a copy of the pages, or are they online? - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

For which one - Kaiser Friedrich or Royal Oak? Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Kaiser. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail! Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I had time to do about half of it, I hope this helps. I'm giving a somewhat literal translation to make it easier to catch my numerous mistakes:

The squadron's ships were Kaiser Friedrich III (flagship), Kaiser Wilhelm der Große, Weisenburg, Wörth (flagship of the 2. Admiral until December), Braunschweig (flagship of the 2. Admiral starting in December), and Elsaß (attached to the formation beginning in May 1905). Nothing special happened during the autumn maneuvers, apart from a wintertime exercise by the combined fleet in the eastern part of the Baltic. There is also nothing special to report from the first quarter of 1905. After gaining Elsaß and the modernized warship Brandenburg and losing Kaiser Wilhelm der Große (to I Squadron), II Squadron remained at its previous strength of six ships. From 12 July to 9 August the fleet's usual grand summer tour took place, which Kaiser Friedrich III participated in during 20-24 July at Göteburg (Gothenburg, at that time), and at Stockholm during 2-7 August. The autumn maneuvers of the active battlefleet then followed. Yet another (if only slight) alteration in the organisation of the fleet affected Kaiser Friedrich III once again: she lost her position as squadron flagship to the new warship Preußen, moved to I Squadron, and took over the position of flagship of the 2. Admiral. This position had been re-created on 1 October and was staffed by KzS und Kommodore Pohl; sein Asto wurde KL Krah (Waldemar). The rest of the year brought I Squadron, with its flagship Wittelsbach, an even larger exercise in the Baltic. In 1906, the usual routine resumed. In the summer there was a larger tour in Norwegian waters. Kaiser Friedrich III was anchored 20-26 July at Molde and from 27 July to 2 August at Bergen. The autumn maneuvers of the active battlefleet were comparatively short, 7-15 September. In a previous fleet engagement, the artillery staff (under artillery officer KL Karl Heine) had been able to achieve for a second time the Kaiser-Schießpreis (Kaiser's shooting prize).

The subsequent autumn change in duties brought a new assignment to [the ship]. In a reshuffling of the order of the fleet, the warship lost its identity as flagship of the 2. Admiral of I Squadron. Since the new chief of fleet, Admiral Prince Heinrich von Preußen, was raising his flag on the new warship Deutschland, this freed up the previous fleet flagship, Kaiser Wilhelm II. After that, the 2. Admiral (???) Rollman. Kaiser Friedrich III remained however in I Squadron. The rest of the year proceeded uneventfully, apart from a December sortie into the North Sea. The same was true for the first half of 1907. The spring exercises (8 May - 7 June) and the summer exercises (12 July - 10 August) in the North and Baltic seas went without incident for the warship, as did the big autumn maneuvers (26 August - 14 September). Immediately afterwards, Kaiser Friedrich III entered the K. W. Kiel [Kiel shipyard, I think] and was readied for decommissioning. On 30 September 1907 came the end of a Front career of almost 10 years. The sister ship Kaiser Barbarossa took her place.

The year 1908 and the beginning of 1909 saw extensive modernizations to warships, as has already been reported. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nate, now that I'm looking at the schedule through the end of November I realize we have too many MilHist and too many ship articles, so I'm pushing this one off till its Jan 15 anniversary. Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks for the translating work above, by the way. I see you have SMS Lützow scheduled for the 29th - I might push off Royal Oak and go through HRS for that first. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much, I was going to ask how the article was holding up. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fine, it was just written before I had access to HRS, so I'm sure there are some details that could be added. Granted, the ship was in service for only a couple of months, so there likely isn't all that much. There's only about a page to translate, so there won't be much. Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 8, 2016

I'm using the phrase "one of the most consequential battles of the war" to describe the Battle of Jutland. My understanding is that, since Germany couldn't send their fleet out, they had permanent supply problems, and the only way to compete was by sinking merchant and warships with U-Boats, with significant consequences. Would you say that Battle of Jutland supports the "consequential" description, or am I pushing it too far? - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you could make a case that it was pretty consequential - I actually wrote a paper on Jutland in a counterfactual history class I took in grad school to see what might have happened if the results had favored the Germans in a bit more lopsided way. The line in our article that most directly supports the argument is this one: "In this view, the most important consequence of Jutland was the decision of the Germans to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare." Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait ... I'm being dumb (again). All I need is something that indicates the significance, and no one will object to calling it "the largest naval battle of the war". Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Operation Paravane ACR

Hi, I'm not sure if you conducted an in-depth review of this article from your comments, but if you feel comfortable doing so - and if I've addressed your comments! - could you please leave a support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Paravane? I'm hoping to wrap it up before going on holiday. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Drache

The article SMS Drache you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Drache for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Salamander

The article SMS Salamander you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:SMS Salamander for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it done?

Are the improvements as suggested on Talk:SMS_Drache/GA1 done? You've not signed for a confirmation, please do it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, all done, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Salamander

The article SMS Salamander you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Salamander for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Drache

The article SMS Drache you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Drache for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Custoza

On 10 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SMS Custoza, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that SMS Custoza was the first Austro-Hungarian major warship to have an iron hull? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SMS Custoza. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, SMS Custoza), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Damn, didn't notice that! Thanks for fixing. Haploidavey (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure - thanks for removing that redundant line. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And just something I meant to say earlier - you write very well indeed. Haploidavey (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It's certainly a skill that's developed over time. One of my older FAs (SMS Lützow, written back in 2009) is scheduled for the main page at the end of the month, and I've had to go back through it quite a bit, and it probably needs more work. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

USS Constellation

Why is it that cancelled or prototype planes get articles but cancelled ships don't? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are apples and oranges - the equivalent would be a cancelled plane type and a cancelled ship class, and there is an article for the Lexington-class battlecruisers. But there's no point to creating permanent stubs that basically duplicate content from the class article. There are exceptions to this rule of thumb (Japanese battleship Tosa and German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin come to mind) when the ships had something notable happen to them, but for most unfinished ships, it's not the case. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Parsecboy.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Novara (1913)

On 16 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SMS Novara (1913), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SMS Novara (1913). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, SMS Novara (1913)), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Panther (1885)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Panther (1885) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Leopard

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Leopard you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Parsecboy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Parsecboy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Panther (1885)

The article SMS Panther (1885) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Panther (1885) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS Leopard

The article SMS Leopard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Leopard for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fargo class cruiser

Hey I found a whole bunch of ships in the class that were never built, do you think the nonbuilt ones should be AFD'ed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iazyges (talk • contribs)

No need to AfD them, just redirect them. If anyone objects, which is unlikely, then you can do an AfD. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Mississippi (BB-41)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Mississippi (BB-41) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your SMS Lützow!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Mississippi (BB-41)

The article USS Mississippi (BB-41) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Mississippi (BB-41) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw you haven't worked on this so in an effort to help I went through the issues that were marked and fixed them. I hope I haven't over stepped anything. The only thing that I changed from the GA list was that I added "State of" to Mississippi, this matches a lot of the other battleships and I felt it helped with continuity. I also added a couple of refs to clarify the turret explosions.Pennsy22 (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated, especially the material from those newspaper articles - I haven't had time over the past day or so to take care of the review. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Mississippi (BB-41)

The article USS Mississippi (BB-41) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Mississippi (BB-41) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A-class with diamonds

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject I am very pleased to present you with the A-Class medal with Diamonds in recognition of your great work in developing the SMS Seeadler, SMS Geier and SMS Kaiser Friedrich III articles to A-class status. Congrats! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)|}