Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Greek Mississppi class

We've got two of them, Greek battleship Kilkis and Greek battleship Limnos. Either we redirect their U.S. articles there, or redirect them to the U.S. ones. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The ships were in the Hellenic navy far longer, so if you feel the need to merge the articles the American names should probably be the redirects. Still, the current system is fine as well according to WP:SHIPNAME (although the articles could do with some expansion) Yoenit (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

After tearing through every library I can find here in El Paso I am throwing in the towel for non-net sources; I simply can not locate any here to use for the purpose of improving the article. I will see what I can do with internet sources, but I make no promises for improvement from what I can find online; if the other online sources were of limited use the best I maybe able to do is GA-class for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try my best on Google Books and at my libraries. Good luck. Buggie111 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the short run, GA is all we need to keep the FT alive. We can take a while to get it back to FA if we need to. Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the books here seem fine, except the last one. (:))

The Sumrall book is probably the most important source. Have you tried ILL? I get a lot of stuff through the Denver Public Library for free. Should be worth checking into.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried ILL, but I have a problem at the moment: I am not a student at UTEP (not yet anyway), and I have therefore forfeited library privileges, and the EP libraries require a fee that I haven't got the money for to obtain a card for ILL related matters. That leaves two options open: the net (and since time is a factor here that's likely going to be one I rely on heavily for the short term), and book stores for purchase of new books (which as I note I haven't got the money for at the moment). With the weekend upon us I do believe that I should have some free time to start net based R&D for the article, but that won't do much good unless we all pull weight for the article. Additionally, I have been so focused on offline material that I have fallen behind on the ACR reviewing; and that really isn't good since so few actually participate. I'm gonna have to work on catching up there first before moving onto the Iowa-class article. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I almost hate to suggest it, but the Iowa-class has a shorter fuse than ACR; but your priorities as lead coordinator are your own perrogative.

Of course, if you have need of a specific book, I will gladly pimp myself out for the project again. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've used woldcrat on the Sumerall, and I'd like to ask you: Fancy going to Munich? Buggie111 (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No need, there's one 47 miles from me. See [1]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at an odd edition. Try this one. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My imagination, or are both of those URLs the same? Anyway, the Sumerall book is in Greeneville, and I will be making a trip up there to see the OB as soon as my wife concieves (yes, it's true: I'm going to have sex for the sake of the project), though I'm not sure if you have to be an ECU student to borrow books there. However, I am sure that I can get it via ILL from the Joint Forces Staff College easily enough. Shall I make the request, or will you fetch it, Sturmvogel? bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the same. Sturm and I were looking at the same one at about the same exact time. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, no, Munich would be lovely, but alas, that is a funding issue. ;) bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Naturlich, München würde geil sein! Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you "look at the book at UTEP that details the history of USS New Jersey and see if it favors one version or the other for decomissioning - TomStar81, 2010-01-30 (last part added by Buggie111)"? Baby steps first. Buggie111 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

<embarrassed, sheepish grin> Yes I did. I also apparently didn't add that info to the article either. </embarrassed, sheepish grin> I'll handle that on Monday, assuming no one else took the book from the library (they shouldn't have, the last person to check it out (excluding my) was back in 98. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some stuff, and I still have Jane's. Try and update it. Buggie111 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lemee guess. they checked out the book. Buggie111 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Include or declude?

Russian battleship Petr Velikyy (1872). It looks like a duck, but I'm not sure I hear quacking. Does it qualify, or is it more a CDS type? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Too early, it's an ironclad not a pre-dreadnought. The ironclads will have to be their own special project at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hughes compound armour comprising 22 inch of wood sandwiched between two 7 inch wrought iron plates" Wooden armor? I think that defines it more as an ironclad than a battleship. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hood article vs Admiral-class BC article

I've started work on the Admiral-class BC article in preparation for taking on the Hood article. I plan to move most of the detailed characteristics to the class article as I've done in my other BC articles, but I'm not sure exactly what should be retained given that Hood is a fairly popular article and I suspect may need a little more detail than I normally provide in my ship articles. What would y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are understating it there, but consistancy is key. I think perhaps referring to the class several times instead of shared statstics would get the point across to editors who might want to duplicate content simply because the Hood was very notable. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So you think that I should write it like normal, but provide a main|Admiral class BC reference (whatever they're called)? I generally don't do that on ship articles as I figure the one link that I provide to the class article suffices, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, I think. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS Warrior

Having just picked up yet another book on HMS Warrior (1860), I've once more found it referred to as a battleship. I know this is subjective description, but I've been seeing this quite a bit lately. As I understand it, Warrior (being a single gun deck) was technically a frigate, but being such a revolutionary warship (and the largest of her time) is now considered by many to be not only a battleship, but the world's first battleship. In fact I think this was part of the logic behind saving and restoring her, as she was considered the country's last surviving battleship. The term battleship seems to have been retrospectively applied in this case, and I was wondering where that would put it within your project. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, it smells more like a Ship of the line than a battleship. But applying our litmus test of guns, armor, and size, it seems it might qualify the definition. What kind of verifiable reliable sources are calling it a battleship? bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it was an armoured frigate, using the terminology of the period. However this nomenclature evolved over time as wooden, steam ships of the line, also known as steam battleships, were replaced by armoured ships with only one gun deck. But all such ships fall outside our purview as we only go back so far as the earliest pre-dreadnoughts around 1882. At some point I'll think up a fanciful name for what will be the Ironclads Project and focus on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) ::To hand I've got this and this (Winton has a wealth of specialist naval books to his name and the Pitkin guide is produced in partnership with the HMS Warrior Preservation Trust as their official guide). Ian V. Hogg also refers to it as a Battleship in several of his books on fortifications/naval guns etc... (don't have these on me today, but I'm pretty sure he does, will clarify if I'm wrong next week). There's also some books I don't have like this, this and this. Admittedly though there's probably an equal number of sources that describe it as an ironclad, and the official Warrior Preservation Trust website doesn't seem to use the term battleship much. Seems to be a bit of mix and match really, which is why I thought I'd ask. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also this (Winton again, produced in association with the Royal Naval Museum) which I think summarises the issue quite well; "...the original design concept was that she should be a frigate. Nevertheless, as built, Warrior was certainly the first ocean-going, iron-hulled battleship, in the modern sense of the word." (p116, italics are his). From memory Dan Snow also called it a battleship in the recent BBC documentary The Empire of the Seas. Its the retroactive thing again, but if theres an official start date for this project, that covers the matter quite well! Ranger Steve (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell the truth, I'm not much interested in what others call it as I know perfectly well what it is; I just have a small problem in getting the rest of the world to agree. I haven't seen those books by Winton, but I've got one you didn't show by Lambert, [2], which is more substantial than any of the others that you listed except the Wells book, which I also didn't know about. I've got the Brownlee as well, so I'm a little bit lacking in the post-reconstruction history, but that's easily done whenever I get around to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Much like the other recent discussions, the "duck test" (look & quack like a duck, call it a duck) is important, but then we tread that fine line between truth and OR. However, Sturmvogel's point hits home that it fits more comfortably under the scope of an ironclad than OMT. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't remember any of the signage on board Warrior referring to her as a 'battleship' when I visited her in 2006. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, they don't even use signs now, it's all audio guide (which I can't comment on). I'm not fussed about this but just thought I should bring it to your attention. As always we are bound to reflect what reliable sources say, but if your project has a start date, that sorts it out quite neatly (rather than simply focusing on the generic term battleship). You might want to think about stating it somewhere though, and also consider renaming this article. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd consider the article name entirely inappropriate as battleship was already being used in lieu of ship of the line already. But I see your point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this project covers just the "typical" pre-dreadnoughts from about the mid-1880s up through the last BBs of the 1940s. All of the various older ironclad warships (like turret ships, coastal defense ships, armored frigates, etc.) that are sometimes referred to as battleships aren't within our scope. Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagging each of the five b class criteria in notes?

I was wondering if we could follow Normandy and Great War Centennial in their tagging of articles as :

4 of 5 for B, references failed

...or somthing like that. Since I'm working on torpedo boats as of now, it would take me a long time to redo this page. Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. How is this different than the B-class assessment? You can do your own assessments of existing articles. It's just considered bad form to do your own if they deserve a B.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean that, since articles like USS Washington (BB-56) are much more closer (4 out of 5) to B than Connecticut class battleship (I'd say 2 or 3 out of 5), but on the project page, they read the same: Start. This would help better identify the ones closer to B/ones needing support without looking at each talkpage. Buggie111 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but I'm not really concerned about it. I have my own standards for each of the criteria and they may not match with somebody else's assessment. Besides, I pick ships to work on based on the sources I have on hand and how much I like the topic. I did most of the Italian pre-dreadnoughts just to get rid of the red links, but haven't pursued them because I only have one source that covers them and I'm not a big fan of pre-dreadnoughts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While MILHIST doesn't use C-class, Ships does. I see no reason not to tag articles as C-class if they've been assessed as such, because this project is an improvement drive and this lets us know the specifics of which article need improvement most. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. All start class battleship articles I have seen meet criteria 4 and 5 and except Connecticut class battleship also criteria 3, but even in that case it is 10 seconds work to make it meet C-class criteria (which is criteria 3,4,5 of B-class). It would just mean that all the current start-class articles would be assesed C-class instead, with no distinction made on the amount of content they have. Yoenit (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413)

Is USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) being included in this project's scope? She was, after all, know as "the destroyer escort that fought like a battleship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.179.91 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

She won't be in the first phase, as she's not a battleship, but qualify for the fifth (Misc.). Feel free to expand her anyways, or any other article under our scope. You'd be the first IP to join! Buggie111 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, not strictly under scope, but would make a good misc article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Phase V...

I give you this. Now minus Outrageous, Curious and Spurious given their (well-deserved!) adding to the main project. A question along those lines, would the article on LLCs I'm fiddling with necessarily be a duplicate/fork of Courageous class battlecruiser? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you're covering. Take a look at the class article and see. Need to emphasize Fisher's belief in speed being paramount a bit more, but the basics are there. Oh, and if anyone's got any leads as to the interwar activities of Courageous and Glorious I'd be grateful as I've got very little to hand on either for that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The bird farms made it in, anyway. I'd like to see the recruits put in there, Dreadnaught Hoax, maybe the U-boat dreanought hit A gift for WS. Also, I believe that we should launch phase 5 as a workgroup initiative, as:

• A: It has less and more varied work
• B: I does not really impead the flow of the FT making of 1.
• C: It will encourage others to join, like Bushranger's friends at WP:AIRCRAFT

Thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. ;) Also, feel free to add anything there, I don't mind a bit! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Seems there has been a lot of confusion lately about what articles are in our scope. To solve this problem, I've developed an application to help with this. Simply ask yourself "is this article about a battleship?" and then begin using the custom-made, user-friendly interface. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

baha's OMT Scope Application

...I love it. :D - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your are getting a barnstar of humor for that. Actually, I think a thing sort of like WP:AW could work. Buggie111 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, the bit about me writing a DYK... -MBK₀₀₄ 03:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I just got that one also... Buggie111 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't realize Tom and I disagree so much. :P Good job bahamut, I needed a good laugh after a shitty shift at work. :D Also, re MBK writing a DYK (which happens to rhyme, congrats on that): will it happen? It's the $64,000 question. ;) Just kidding man. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you guys tend to agree, but it's funnier this way. Plus, "Sturmvogel" is too long to fit in the triangle. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realized that I used three emoticons in three sentences. Must've been tired last night, lol. Maybe we ought to make Sturm change his name. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I know a 'crat.... bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

I'm working with net sources for Iowa class battleship, I've done some tweaking with the missile section, but I need someone good at conversions to straighten out the ranges I added in the section since they are all a little off and need to be brought into uniformity with the rest of the article's conversion style. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. BTW, I've given up on abbreviating inches unless space is critical, like perhaps the infobox. Abbreviating it saves two whole letters on the screen, while forcing me to type eight more telling it to abbreviate and forces my hands off the key board to hit the nbsp link with my mouse. It's just not worth the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved with the recent updating of this Iowa article reassess it? If its B-class, then we can push on to GA, and that will keep our FT featured. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, at a glance the "Reactivation potential" section still needs to be updated (where did that tag go?) and the "Popular culture" stuff needs to be cited to works which discuss their role in culture—to generalize "Such scenarios usually feature the battleships in naval gunfire support missions for U.S. or NATO personnel" from a video game and a (good) book is, in my view, an problematic use of inductive reasoning. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To be brutally honest what we can do to avoid the problem is just remove the section altogether and then nit-pick on it until we get to a place where we feel that the section is cited enough for inclusion. Ideally, we would add additional citations behind the two already there; however, I for one am willing to adopt any particular method as long as it works. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a little bit of irony for you...

...when that fleet of Austro-Hungarian battleships sailed across DYK yesterday, they all got between 1.3k and 1.8k hits each...while bombardment of Ancona, just there in their DYK as a related, non-bolded link, got 3.9k hits. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem with multiple-article DYKs, they tend to split up the page views. That the bombardment article got more hits than all of them makes sense though, probably a good number of the people who viewed the individual articles all clicked on the bombardment article, so it sort of funneled them back together. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sound reasoning. I do agree that it is worth a chuckle though. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

All my work....for only 1.3-1.8 hits :( Oh well!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, added together, they came out to a combined 8,000 hits. Not too bad (and qualifying for DYKSTATS)... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just want to note that a DYK Cla and I did this month, Japanese battleship Tosa, got 13,400 on its own. Kthnx. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And well-deserved, too! :D - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to give props to MBK for dilligently maintaining the DYKs on the portal. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we applaud MBK for all the grunt work he does. Without him, our lists would never get updated. Neither would MILHIST's or SHIPS'. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom? Do I hear some chevrons calling? bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, but if you take a look at MBK's award section you will notice a disproportionate amount of the awards he has received have come eihter from Roger Davies or from me. Not that I mind adding my name to another award for MBK, but in the interest of autographing perhaps someone else would like to do the honors this time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that the regular chevrons can be awarded by anyone; I was thinking of the chevrons with oak leaves. Maybe he deserves them in addition to/instead of the ones I gave. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

MBK has already been awarded the Chevrons w/Oak Leaves, so her would be ineligible to receive them again. Also, as he is a coordinator at the moment is would be ineligible to receive them until such time as he left office. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Bahamut, he deserves something for all the work he does. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we rename his account to User:OMT Bot. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support - there is a clear need for adding "bot" to his name. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Captains for the USS Indiana (BB-1)

While rewriting the article for the US first real battleship I noticed that while the first two captains (Robley D. Evans & Henry Clay Taylor) have their own page (propably because they had ships named after them and are thus included in the DANFS), information on later captains (Francis W. Dickins, William H. Emory and no doubt several more after 1906) is very scarce. Doesn't the navy have some kind of register for this stuff? If not, should they be included based on news articles mentioning them? Are they in fact notable enough to get their own article in the biography phase of the project? Yoenit (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, biographies... finally, something I can contriute to. :)

For the mostpart, I interprete WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:MILPEOPLE to require more than just mere command. For OMT's purposes, I figure that they need to either command a very significant vessel (BB-1 might qualify for the first few captains) or naval unit, command a vessel/unit during a significant action (such as a notable battle or operation), be significantly decorated for thier actions aboard a ship within our scope (i.e. MOH, NC, VC, or equivalents; I know some people disagree with me on the NC), or some other honor (like having a ship named for them).

To answer your specific question, I think that we would need more than mere command of BB-1 years after its launch to satisfy notability requirement, even if thier commands did get them some media notice (for comparison, the commander of an Army National Guard regiment might be mentioned in some of the local newspapers, but still doesn't meet notability requirements). Have these captains done anything else of note? I'd guess not, because they'd probably already have articles if they did... Also, the Navy does keep significant records on most every officer, especially captains of vessels, but only a fraction of them are publicly available. You could request copies of thier service records, but then, can you adequetely reference those? If you publish it yourself, then we run into some murky waters about COI and OR.

So in general, I'd say no, we probably don't need to create articles for them. You have to consider that references are thin and the articles will likely not get past stub- or start-class. However, a list of captains on the ship's article would not be a bad idea at all. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, regarding that very last comment...probably not. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Goodness... I had to throw my thoughts over there. If I can remember, I'll check back. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Also note that I'm referring to the U.S. Navy above, I do recall that the RN does publish lots of service records from thier officers online. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I'd only mention the captain of a ship if he was notable himself and if something important happened during his tenure. Which reminds me that the first captain of HMS Dreadnought (1906) later became a Admiral (notable in and of itself), but was one of Fisher's advisors and helped to design Dreadnought and that I need to add that bit to the ship's article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, nine out of ten of Dreadnought's Captains became a flag officer on the Active List (the exception being Arthur C. S. Hughes-D'Aeth, who only became a Rear-Admiral on the Retired List). --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's why there are two conditions for my standard. An uneventful command tour isn't noteworthy, IMO. OTOH, it might be worthy of mentioning on that admiral's page that he commanded a notable ship like Dreadnought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Helping to design Dreadnought, a revolutionary ship, certainly satisfies MILPEOPLE, as long as "helped" involves something significant, which it seems to. However, it seems that Reginald Bacon already has an article, so it's a moot point. I'd prefer not to spill the "captain list" discussion here, because the implications far exceed this project's scope, so let's not duplicate the centralized discussion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

From where I sit, captains of the battleships (or any other warship on Wikipedia for that matter) should be mentioned as a one liner in the article body somewhere, and any officer who made it to flag rank should warrant his (and increasingly, her) own article since flag rank is notable; those with stars on the shoulder we can link from ship articles. I for one do not want to see lists in the ship articles, lists contaminate what are otherwise good articles with sections that have no business being presented as an afterthought in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One caveat to that: not every flag officer (or indeed, individual who is notable enough for an article) has an article to link to. While I'm not supportive of MILPEOPLE's claim that stars are automatically enough, I believe I can crack out a lot of start and B-class biographies when the time comes. Remind me to discuss ribbons once we get into the biography phase. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hazegray removal

As that site is now infected, is there anyone opposed to me removing references to hazegray? Buggie111 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Infected? As in a virus? Will they be able to fix the issue? bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Can they be replaced with links to (eg) archive.org copies of the pages? Shimgray | talk | 15:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Wayback Machine links should help until - hopefully! - they can fix whatever's ailing them. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wayback works. I can go around and start replacing the links, if you guys want. Buggie111 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Another inclusion or declusion

While working on the Abdul Kadir, I ran across the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. It looks like a duck, sounds like one, but needs biooptic tests before passing. Buggie111 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, key words: central battery ironclad. And the date before 1882 is also important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess that after the turret-adding reconstruction, she was just a CDS? (Perhaps, instead of ducks, ships of this type are actually moorhens...) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An armoured cruiser at best, I think, with only 9.2-inch guns. But I'd not argue hard one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

8-Ball says: No. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Iowa/South Dakota working groups

I recall that there was some discussion when OMT became part of MILHIST about merging the Iowa and South Dakota working groups here, since they no longer served any purpose as stand-alone bodies. Does anyone recall if there was ever a decision on this? Given the lack of any activity at the working groups, now seems like as good a time as any to merge them, if we're going to go down that path. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironic that you would bring that up since I was debating on whether or not to nominate those two working groups for deletion on the grounds you outlined above. I think there was some low level discussion on this subject, however nothing official was decided and the two working groups were left operational. I agree with the sentiment that the two ought to be either merged into this project or redirected to point here, but in the interest of fairness I'm open to discussion on the matter for anyone who would like to suggest an alternative to the two suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Might as well redirect. I doubt anyone will object. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems with it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's done. Both the working groups and the talk pages have been redirected here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Offering help with sources

Are there any sources people need for OMT but haven't been able to get their hands on? - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I can send out the same offer also. @ DAnk, could you check through your sources for mentionings of the PEtropavlovsk class battleship and then add it to User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). Then we have Turkish battleship called the Rshadieh and Abdul Kadir, and austro-Hungary. I don't know what sources their cited in, I'd just want to see if they are in yours. Buggie111 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll check and answer on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We are always looking for more respectable books on the Iowa-class battleships, especially now that the FT is at risk. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The book we need for that article is Garzke and Dulin's United States Battleships 1935–1992—that will cover almost all of what we need for the service histories, and most of the propulsion, armor etc. etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have access to that book, just not in the near future. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have it already, I'll get to work, starting with Iowa class battleship since that's at GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin America books incoming

Hi guys, I just ordered Latin America: A Naval History, 1810-1987 and Latin America's Wars Volume II: The Age of the Professional Soldier, 1900-2001 today, and I'm planning to use them on the South American battleships in the near future. However, I'm not sure how good they will be on technical info/how and why they were designed, so any help with the class articles (Rivadavia class and Minas Geraes class) would be appreciated. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I might have some sources that I skipped over during my write of moreno. Minas Gerais needs a GA to get another GT. Buggie111 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I posted this before I noticed your Moreno additions. I've been waiting for more sources before writing the Minas Geraes/Rivadavia class articles. ...and same with Moreno and the other South American BBs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Inter wikimedia work

[Any help with this?]. Buggie111 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Titan's Cross?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan/Titan's Cross. bahamut0013^words_deeds 04:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I give up

After much thought on the matter I have elected to surrender the Iowa-class battleship articles - all of them - to the community. It has become apparent to me that I no longer have the needed capability to build articles of exemplary standard. I invite anyone interested to pick up on the articles I have been involved with over the years. My name will be removed from the maintained templates on the respective talk pages by the beginning of next week. Hopefully, the rest of you will succeed where I failed in regards to these articles.

Respectfully,

TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that Tom? Is thisa "I quit the project" statement, or somthing else? The only thing I see that seems to have been bad in your work is the main article for the iowas, which is currently up at GA? Or is it that you find the American BB's too hard? There's work in all those minor navies that is to be done. If you quit, than I will sure miss you. Buggie111 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel unfit to maintain these articles since the standards and reliable source I use have apparently fallen by the way side. I am giving up maintaining the articles, I apparently can not write at the GA-A-FA level anymore; I will stay with the project, but probably only in a support capacity. Hopefully this will help us improve the articles I have apparently failed to keep in good health. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the non-reliable source? And you can work on the thread above. Buggie111 (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I hope I didn't step on your toes by doing a lot of editing and question-answering at the GAN. I see that there's been a lot of shouting about what should and shouldn't be in theIowa-related articles; I don't know why. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not stepping on my toes so to speak; I'm just tired of being berated by good intentioned users to fix things. Its obvious that I'm not maintaining the articles and I am loath to watch them slide away so I am simply resigning from the maintenance of the articles on grounds that I feel I'm unfit to work on them in any capacity. Look whose doing all the work on the GA: its you and brad and ed, not me; I would not even now how to help without irritating someone or screwing something up so I figure that at this point its in everyone's best interest for me to stop interfering with the rest of y'alls attempt to actually improve the articles.

If you're giveing up on the Iowa ones, can you help out in other sections? There are whole nations whose battleships are unclaimed and in need of writeing :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is your perrogative to work as you choose, but I think you're being far too sensitive to criticism. You've done some amazing work in the past, going back to my firsthand experience working in the battleship debate article. Perhaps some time off is due if you are feeling stress, but I don't think you should give up entirely. bahamut0013^words_deeds 03:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In my anthropology class Senior year at UTEP Dr. Nunez, whose wisdom I value in such matters, had us read a story concerning an Anthropologist that was promoted to a position of leadership in the federal government. One of the hardest lessons the anthropologist in the story learned was that the higher up the totem pole you get the more you need to learn to let go and trust that the members of your team will step up to the fill the shoes that you leave behind. I thought that I would be able to run milhist and maintain the Iowa-class articles, but like the anthropologist in the story I read I see now that I can not do both; it needs to be one or the other. Its for the reason that I have decided to let go of the Iowa class articles, because I know that behind me stands the best crew of the best special project on the English Wikipedia. I have full faith and confidence in each and every one of you that you will be able to run this project like the well oiled machine I know it is. In time I believe that I will be able to return to the Iowa-class articles, knowing that they will be in outstanding shape when I return. I can think of no higher honor than trust, so I am honoring all of you with my trust. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was probably one of the greatest speeches I have ever read on Wikipedia. Thanks for the confidence :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, when ya put it like that... Ditto to what WS said. Though it may be a tad presumptuous to compare yourself to Macarthur. ;P But I understand where you're comng from; the concept of "leadership from the front" can only go so far, and recognizing your limitations is a mark of wisdom. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alaska class

I looked through the talk pages, and didn't see any consensus on including or excluding the Alaska class - the only real comment I saw actually seemed to favour inclusion. (And, according to the article, they were originally intended to carry CC hull numbers...). The Alaska class cruiser page is also at FA already. Should this class be included? - The Bushranger (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the argument here: thier guns are too large to be on par with heavy cruisers, armored to withstand impacts of its own heaviest guns, created as a response to the German "pocket battleships", and thier roles was similar that of the Iowas (escorting aircraft carriers, bombardment, cruiser killers). The arguments at Alaska class cruiser#"Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"? lean me toward battlecruiser (I prefer to classify something as it is rather than how it was designed or labelled), though I'd like to hear more arguments to the contrary (I know that at least one of you can play devil's advocate). bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have battleships and battlecruisers; why not the cruiser killers? I mean, the Alaskas are roughly on par with the Dutch Design 1047, and that article is included. Tangent thought: I really need to rewrite the Alaska class article with stuff from Friedman. Maybe this summer. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of the Soviet-era BC's had their genesis in cruiser-killer designs, so I don't really see it as much of a stretch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Most references I've seen call them 'large cruisers', so I don't think that they're in-scope. If these ships are brought into the project's scope then the Soviet Kirov class battlecruisers need to be as well as they're also called both 'battlecruisers' and 'cruisers' in references. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said, they were originally to be CCs, and they seem to fit the classic definition of a battlecruiser. And personally I think the Kirovs should be included too. But then, I'm both a battlecruiser junkie and an inclusionist. :P - The Bushranger (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger. AirplanePro 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Three-step test

Last night while staying up late I pondered the issue, and came up with a three-step "sniff test" that I applied to the Alaska class, to see if it qualified as a battlecruiser for inclusion.

To wit:

1. How was it designated, and how was it referred to at the time? Officially, the Alaskas were designated CB, which the U.S. Navy defined as 'Large Cruiser'. Well, first, this is a different and distinct category from the "Heavy Cruisers" (CA), which they're often described as just being overgrown versions of. In addition, they appear to have originally have been intended to have designations in the "CC" series, from CC-7 ownwards - an extension of the 'proper' Battlecruiser category after the Lexingtons. And even "CB" itself can only be logically decoded, despite its official defintion, as 'Cruiser, Battle'. Finally, we have Jane's Fighting Ships. Which, while admittedly not the most definitive of authorities, is certainly one of the best-known, and would have been even more so at the time. Which classes the Alaskas as Battle Cruisers, groups them with the Battleships, and says explicitly:
   
   All ordered in Sept. 1940 and officially described as "Large Cruisers". In fact, they are the first battle cruisers to be ordered by any Navy since the Washington Conference met in 1921.
   
   On point 1, therefore, the Alaska class seems to qualify as a Battlecruiser.
2. How do they compare to other ships? The Alaskas are, in design, indeed similar to a scaled-up "Treaty Cruiser" - but they're twice the size, or more. In addition, if you compare them to the Design 1047 battlecruisers, which are included, they are larger and more heavily armed. Alaska, indeed, is not only comparable in size to, but outguns, SMS Scharnhorst. They're also (I believe) the largest non-battleship, non-aircraft-carrier surface combatants to be built post-Washington Treaty.
   On point 2, therefore, the Alaska class seems to qualify as a Battlecruiser.
3. Does it look like a duck? Or, more specifically, does it meet the 'traditional' definition of a battlecruiser? Alaska has a capital-ship calibre main armament, but has a cruiser's standard of protection - and cruiser speed, although that particular factor is less definitive with the onset of fast battleships like the Iowas. Although they do seem very much to the fast battleships as the "classic" battlecruisers were to the dreadnoughts. So, by this standard, the Alaskas seem to be both waddling and quacking, and therefore on point 3 qualifying as Battlecruisers.

Now, I don't mean to come across as argumentative or anything like that, it's just that it's my opinion that the Alaskas fit the scope of the project. (And that the Kirovs do too, scoring 2.5 on "BR's Battlecruiser Quacks-Like-A-Duck Test".) But if it's the opinion of y'all that they don't, I'll roll with the consensus. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making good points here. :-) I think that, barring significant opposition, the Alaskas ought to be added. On the flip side, the Kirovs should not; IMHO, they score a .5 on this test for #1. The Russians refer to them as "Heavy Nuclear(-Powered) Missile Cruiser," and they aren't really 'traditional' battlecruisers because they have missiles, not guns.

The intent of this project, as I see it, is to bring all pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts to FA/GA. This includes battlecruisers because they were built as part of the dreadnought revolution. We exclude ships like the Greek Hydras and the Nordic/Dutch coast-defense ships—even though they are described in sources as "battleships"—simply because they don't meet the definition of being a battleship. The same logic applies here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• sails a Kirov across the discussion, quacking* :P I can see your point there, no worries. It's just I guess I've always thought of the Kirovs as The Most Awesome Modern Ships Ever since I was a kid and first found out about 'em, so I'm a bit partial to 'em. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That begs another question: do we have any other agreed "litmus test" distinctions between BBs, CCs, and other ships? Guns, size, and armor? bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's no further comment, I'll probably add the Alaskas to the main page in the morning. Perhaps the Kirovs could call under Phase 5? (And maybe then the Arsenal ship, too, since it was apparently proposed to carry on the BB hull number sequence... ;) ) - The Bushranger (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Along with that, I'd add Design B-65 cruiser to the battlecruisers section. Buggie111 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, like you say, phase 5 at minimum is assured. Even if we are on the fence about it now, it definitely is so strongly related that we can include it in the misc articles, much like the Kirovs and arsenal ship. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So should we just add the ships listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Large cruiser classes? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I say yes... Well, can we all agree that those are all battlecruisers in everything but name? Or do we need to refine the distinguishing line a bit more? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a battlecruiser by any other name shoots as well... and the proposed List of post-Washington Naval Treaty battlecruisers there would be quite useful, too, I think. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So where do the Courageous class large light cruisers fit? The Washington Treaty counted them as capital ships which is why all three were converted to carriers. I'm probably going to split the class article into two, one each for their role as LLCs and CVs, much like the Lexington-class articles are split. Which reminds me, why do we have the Lexington-class CV article as part of our project when we have the BC article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I sign up for the OMT?

I am interested in joining the Operation Majestic Titan project, and am desirous to contribute my editing skills and knowledge of battleships to the Wikipedia community. SpellingGuru (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just add your name to the list of participants.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel kinda dumb asking, but, how do I do that properly? SpellingGuru (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Click here, then hit the edit tab (its on your right), then add you name in alphabetical order. You are welcome to add you area of interest, but its not mandatory. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Event removal from Phase one

As I set up Phase 3, I was thikning that we should remove both Iowa events from pahse one. Currently, Great White Fleet would have one partner, the Scuttling of the Germans at Scapa flow. Both Iowa incidents, a decent article on the Potemkin mutiny, the Dreadnought hoax, and maybe somthing on the scuttling of the Russian fleet in port Arthur or sorties made to escape port arthur during the RJ war might make a comfy litte, as the russians say, kompashka(or kampashka, a subject of an arguement at the dinner table). Ideas, and maybe references for the Potemkin mutiny? Buggie111 (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Phase III consists of all events related to battleships (which are mainly battles) and you are making a list of non-battle events for phase III? I agree stuff like the Iowa turret explosion belong there and not in phase I.Dreadnought hoax seems like phase V to me though and I never heard of the Potemkin mutiny before now, so can't help you there. Yoenit (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the issue here, but I point out that both the Iowa turret explosion and Missouri grounding incident are a part of the ship's history, while events like the Scapa Flow Scuttling and the Great White Fleet are less the history of one ship and more the history of a larger event. I included the Iowa material in Phase I on these grounds, but I do see Buggie's point and I am open to discussion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your position is basically "It belongs in phase I if only reason the article is not just a section of the ship article is WP:Undue", right? Following that logic the potemkin mutiny would also be phase I and all others events purely related to 1 ship which needs a separate article. That also seems reasonable, I have moved to neutral on this. Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone closed out of my window, so now someone else should create Phase Three. Why are you all awake in the middle of the American night? (Well, Yoenit might not be, but Tom sure is). It was listed in the Order of Operations section as stuff like the Great White Fleet and the Battle of Jutland. I could merge both into one section, titled batleships and events, but would like to hear other discussion that will only reach me in July. From Russisa with annoyance that I only have four sources describimg the history of the Knyaz Suvorov, Buggie111 (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

While I can see either POV, I lean toward phase III. Really, the distinction between the ships and the ships' histories is enough for me. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help with sources on USS Oregon (BB-3)

I plan on rewriting USS Oregon (BB-3) soon. The article has potential as at least two books exists on the ship: Battleship Oregon: Bulldog of the Navy : An Oregon Documentary and McKinley's Bulldog, the Battleship Oregon. The problem being that I don't have either of them and it is extremely doubtfull I can find them in any dutch library. Although the books themselfs are cheap, international shipping is not and I don't want to order them both and find that they are almost identical. So if anybody with access to both books could have a look through and tell me if which one is superior or if I really need to get both to give a clear picture of the ship. Yoenit (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan/Titan's Cross

Two nominations for the Titan's Cross are currently open, members are invited to comment on the noms at the link above. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops...

I failed to notice this until just now, but I apparently named this project after myself without really meaning to. The shortcut to the main project page is WP:OMT, but rearrange the letters OMT and you get TOM. (LOL) Anyway, sorry about that; I'll make a point to avoid repeating the error the next time I name project :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it took you so long to notice clears you of guilt in my book. Well, you did compare yourself as a leader with MacArthur... That's some bad juju in two senses there, Tom.

On an unrelated note, can we backronym the next project BAHA or BOB? Oh, wait, WP:BAHA already exists. Oops. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Phase organization

While I was hashing this out yesterday, I had some thoughts:

1. Phase II is nominally weapons, but the line "used by the battleship or battlecruiser in question if employed to assist with firing the ordinance." to me includes the spotter aircraft. I know this is a touchy line in the BB vs. CV debate, but I really don't think they should be relegated to Phase V based on the fact that they helped the guns go boom more accurately. We may want to expand this phase to include some other equipment... there may be articles on engines, supporting craft (like launch boats), depth charges, etc.
2. On that note, do small arms come into play at all? Just about every big American battleship had Marines and masters-at-arms, and I imagine that most other nation's capital ships had some sort of armed personnel for security and boarding defense. But then, you could say the same about most any type of ship, so it may not relate to OMT any more than the article rudder or hull might.
3. To that end, where are we going to count the major articles like battleship, battlecruiser, dreadnought, and less visible ones like United States Naval Gunfire Support debate? Are these all Phase V, or maybe a few for Phase III?
4. How includive or exclusive should we be on Phase III? Anything where a battleship was present, or only the events where a battleship actually played a notable role? Since that is subjective, should we come up with a more specific criteria?
5. Likewise, how inclusive should we be for Phase IV? Some very notable naval men have almost nothing to do with battleships, but may have served aboard one briefly enough to be noted in thier record of service. What about admirals who had battleships under thier command, but other than having had a flagship aboard one, never did anything of note for that class of vessel?

Some of this may be many months down the road, so I'm not going to bothered if we decide to defer the drama for now, but it may be good to start doing some preliminary thinking. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, on your above points:

• It does, but I expect that we can debate that point toward the end of phase I.
• They can. I've been trying to get information on marine units deployed aboard a battleship, but keep coming up empty-handed. I suppose that sort of makes sense; these are obviously not amphibious assault ships, but more could be said on small arms and we could, if enough info could be located, create/include pages on the marine detachments carried by the battleships. So far all the info I have is that marines were there, they number about 40 or so, and they manned one 5-inch gun turret. Its not much, but we got to start somewhere, right?
• I'd be incline to say phase V, but thats me. Those articles will be difficult to maintain since they are a lot broader in scope than ships and the classes and weaponry and so forth
• I think some general guidelines will have to be developed for that, we can discuss it as a group when we get there.
• Commanded should speak for itself, but served on will be iffy: some fellows like admirals will eventually have command of battleships, others will serve on a battleship for while and then leave to do other things. We will need to tighten this up, but not being a big biography guy I would be interested in here what other people think the criteria for inclusion should be.

Those are my takes on the above points, feel free to comment on them. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. for phase II stuff like armor (harvey armor, krupp armour) and boilers (Scotch_marine_boiler, Water-tube boiler) should not be forgotten. Don't really have an opinion on the spotter aircraft.
2. I don't think there is a reason to include any small arms articles, unless they were specifically made for service on a battleship or played a significant role in an encounter with one. For marines divisions it really depends on how much information we can dig up, but I suspect one general article about them will do.
3. neutral
4. notable role, more specific guideline to be developed later (new 8 ball?)
5. I think there should be a common event between the person and the ship which increases notability for both for a person to be included. For example: George Landenberger commanded USS Indiana (BB-1) during WW I, at which point the US had over 40 battleships and the Indiana was an utterly obsolete training ship, so don't include. Winfield Scott Schley did never serve on or command a battleship, but should be included as he was in charge of the US fleet at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba and responsible for the total destruction of the Spanish fleet by American battleships, making him a hero and USS Oregon (BB-3) famous. Yoenit (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I don't think too many people will be upset about widening the scope of Phase II to include "weaponry and equipment"? I don't think we can manage individual articles or even a subsection on the ship's articles about the Marine detachments, they just aren't big or independant enough to be notable on thier own right. I think I can probably scrape together an article about Marine detachments aboard ships in general and maybe a subarticle on battleships in particular (I have a good article about MarDets during WWII), but everything I've seen on them depicts them with all of the basic weapons and equipment of normal Marine units. In that case, small arms would probably be out unless they were navy-unique, which I don't think there were any.

Regarding biographies, I think that an intersection of notability is important here for both the person and the ship/action. If you saw my remarks at WT:SHIPS, then you know that I feel that commanders are notable (if not for an article, then for a mention), but I too have a hard time spending time on a biography for someone who is so low in notability that his own crew probably forgot his name. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'm not too concerned with the organization of phase II/III/IV/etc. Frankly, it'll be a job well done if we can get all of phase I completed before all of us have retired (both wiki-wise and real-life wise, and some of us are fairly young!). For now, we could just amalgamate all the related stuff (weapons, equipment, etc) into one phase. Keep them large and unwieldy, it makes it seem like a more gargantuan effort when we finish it ;) Cam ^(Chat) 00:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, Cam, you said exactly what I was thinking after reading through that. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Battleship, Dreadnought, etc?

I'm very pleased to see this project here. But so far as I can tell, its scope doesn't appear to cover the "History of the Battleship" articles, to wit:

• Battleship
• Battlecruiser
• Ironclad (arguably)
• Pre-Dreadnought
• Dreadnought
• Treaty Battleship
• Battleships in World War II

Surely these should be in Phase I? Luckily most of them are already FAs :-) The Land (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They are FAs thanks you you and it is good to see you back editing. Along these lines, I notice that Battleships after World War II currently redirects to a section of Battleship, but there might be just enough meat on the bones for a stand-alone article to complete {{BBhistory}}. There also is Standard type battleship, which seems to be an odd-duck that comprises several American classes. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fast battleship is probably also relevant to the project. I'm not sure there is enough material on "Battleships after world War II" to make it an independent article from Battleship or Iowa Class Battleship. Anyway, it's just a suggestion to include these articles into the scope of this project. The Land (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I posed that question in the above #Phase organization section. Only one response, and it was Phase V. That makes the most logical sense to me, but I wouldn't be upset to see them listed in Phase I. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't we need Battleship to be the central topic? Why not go and have "Battleship" as the central article, with "battlecruiser", "pre-dreadnought", "dreadnought", and "treaty battleship" as attached articles and country lists as subtopics? It wouldn't be the longest FT that way, but I have a feeling that they would have made us break it up anyway. [note: ironclads were too early, BBinWWII isn't a development of the ship as a technology] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification of a proposed SPS policy change, which will have major influence on phase II

I hereby want to inform all of you who don't actively follow WT:SHIPS or WT:V that on the latter a proposed change to the SPS policy has been made. The outcome of this discussion will determine whether navweaps.com is a reliable source and is therefore of major importance to Phase II of this project. (hope this is not seen as canvassing) Yoenit (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agh, this is still going on? What a pain in the ass. I'll put in my two cents. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A pain in the ass which will hopefully result in the right result.... ;-) The Land (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Iowa class battleship/GA1

The GA review for Iowa class battleship is nearing the end of its cycle; if nothing happens in the next week or two, the FT nom will dissolve. I'll help if I can, but I'm still trying to get the ACRs worked off and the new newsletter format up and running. I really need one or more of you to step up to the plate here. Its just a GAR, it should be easy to meet the minimum requirements and pull the article out of the danger zone, but if no one else can handle the GAR then I can resign my position as lead coordinator to do the work required on the article to bring it up to GA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, there are times you come across wrong, and I hope this is one of those times. Are you saying you can't let EyeSerene handle the newsletters and let others handle the ACRs while you finish Iowa? There is no need to resign. I may disagree with the number of coordinators, but there is a reason we have 15. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dank seems to have the GAR in hand pretty well anyway. The only reason it went stale for a while was because Courcelles kind of neglected to review it after the first burst of critiques were resolved. Not to malign your efforts, but it seems that you don't have anything to worry about, Tom. I'll chip away a bit as well. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: the only roadblock left is some possible unreliable source tags in the armor section. That needs the attention of someone more familiar with the refs than I, such as Tom or Ed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats going to be problematic since the information there was originally sourced to a website that is a) no longer operational and b) no longer considered an RS. I have had very little luck with armor info, it was one of the reason that I never expanded that section beyond a simple explanation of the armor of yesteryear and the armor of today. If you have no luck with the armor sources then I would suggest asking OberRanks (talk · contribs) for advice, he may be able to turn something up that would help. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the last paragraph of the armor section as it doesn't seem to be correct as well as being unreliably sourced. See [3] for the best discussion I've ever seen on armor quality and types. There' are still a number of cites from global security that need to be replaced. One related point is that I'd like to see more detail on how the armor was laid out, thicknesses, locations, etc. I'm also perturbed that Sumrall's books aren't cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait... GlobalSecurity.org isn't an RS? That's news to me; I thought all they do is steal PD content anyway. bahamut0013^words_deeds 03:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The GAN has passed, nice work everybody! Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		I am extraordinarily thankful for the effort that all of you put into the article to help it pass the GA review. As a measure of my appreciation, I wish to award this WikiProject Ships Barnstar to all those who participated in the drive to get the class article to GA status. You are the partakers of this glorious achievement, and it is due to your dedication and effort that our first Featured Topic has been saved. Semper Fi, TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Warship International

Just to let you all know, I'm currently in possession of all of the editions of Warship International from 1971, so if anyone needs assistance with an article covered in one of these editions, feel free to ask. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Either you just robbed a bank or you have one hell of a library. Either way, nice. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally got them out of the OSU library? Good work. I'll be hitting you up for some scans at some point, I'm sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, OSU has nearly ever edition from the late 60s to the early 2000s. See here for a full listing. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite impressive. I am envious of how well-equipped your library is. Cam ^(Chat) 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that there was ever any doubt, but that clinches it: My ass is going to Ohio State. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have access to all issues of Warship Intentional since 1966 :p Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bah, wish I had acces to a library with stuff like that. Is there some kind of index with the name of all their articles? I would be interested in anything related to BB-1, to 4 but I can't sent you off to read them all and see if they wrote anything about it. Also, are other comparable journals (dealing with warship history) in English? I know only of Warships. Yoenit (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gah, I would love to be at OSU for solely that reason! Yoenit, a couple indexes are located here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an article on Oregon that I have that I can scan for you sometime soon. But this brings up a related question. Is there any index for Warships? There's nothing on the WSS site and it appears that it may have interesting article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-article features

Has anyone submitted any non-article features lately? I've caught a couple Good Topics today and added them to the showcase, but are there any more that I've missed because they aren't getting listed on the Phase I progress table? Maybe some fetured pictures or the like (the last update was back when I started looking at them for the portal a few months ago)? bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Inter wikimedia work

[[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior:World_War_II/Battleships Again, I ask: Any help with this?]]. Buggie111 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

List of ironclad battleships?

Is there a list article for the predecessors of the pre-dreadnought battleships out there? SpellingGuru (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of lists for individual countries which are pretty good, don't think there is a consolidates list. Though please be aware that terminology was quite fluid during that period and "ironclad battleship" isn't necessarily the right term at any point in time! The Land (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like how do monitors and casemate ironclads fit in a category or list called battleships? Frankly I figure that ironclad warships is probably the best title as it avoids pesky issues like the definition of a battleship and includes everything from floating batteries to true battleships. And that can be subdivided as people see fit. I can just see Category:List of monitors that never fired a shot in anger.<snicker> --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or what about centerfire battery ships that were later converted into predreadnaught like vessels. Mindblowing.XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't La Gloire considered the first ironclad, with Warrior a close second? Good starting spot.SpellingGuru (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But neither of them were called 'battleships' at the time. The Land (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

True enough. I recall reading in an early British battleship article, probably sourcing Beeler's Birth of the Battleship (good book), that the RN considered the first Colossus class capital ship a "battleship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpellingGuru (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the old definition of a (armored) frigate was used for the first several generations of British ironclads because they only had one main gun deck, unlike battleships with two or three.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hood

Does anyone have access to Chesneau, Roger (2002). Hood — Life and Death of a Battlecruiser. London: Cassell Publishing. ISBN 0-304-35980-7? I need some scans or copies from the section on the preliminary maneuvering before the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Otherwise I'm going to have to trim the section on that in the Hood article to whatever I can source from what I have onhand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can get hold of it, but not for a few weeks I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Then don't worry about; I can get it myself in that time. I was just hoping that somebody might have it close at hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic Guidelines?

I am interested in either devising or assisting in the formulation of a stylistic standard for pages under OMT oversight.

For example,

In infoboxes, in what order should the armor locations be sorted (i.e., by alphabetically, thickness, importance, et cetera); For class pages, should the name of the class be included in the class section or at all? In general, should one prefer Unicode codes over non-Unicode characters (i.e., & nbsp; over the space, & mdash; over —, & ndash; over –)?

I believe that one standard be chosen and adhered to; consistency will look more organized.

Feedback is requested.SpellingGuru (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the resources section yet? Or are these not yet covered? It my be better to establish a Ships/Milhist-wide consensus, rather than try to shoehorn in our own little rebellious little consensus here. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: WP:MOSDASH says use en dashes instead of hyphens when possible.

I've brought this up as Dank reverted my contribution at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Carolina_class_battleship&oldid=370585144 for what I am guessing was based upon my replacement of non-breaking spaces throughout the article. I did leave an inquiry on his talk, as I did more than replace entities, but have not yet seen a response. I've spent about an hour sifting through MOS for specifics on whether entities are preferred over standard characters as a style in general. I do replace hyphens according to MOS to denote a range of values though. The thing is, I go in spurts from one bb article to the next trying to standardize as much as possible, and desire a consensus for uniformity. SpellingGuru (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "rebellious" in my view. Wikipedia's pretty decentralized when it comes to style guidelines; for stuff like infoboxes, it's left up to the individuals writing the article. Heck, if we wanted, we could get rid of infoboxes in OMT articles. I don't see any difference between unicode and characters; I use Advisor.js to format them like you did, and I don't see any need to make a fuss about it. Article edit windows do look cleaner without them though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, can't stand the look of bulleted lists in infoboxes and am getting tired of reverting/changing them back. I do believe that the MOS does require a non-breaking space between a measurement and its abbreviated unit like 12.7& nbsp ;mm. I'm indifferent to the order of armor locations, though I normally start off waterline belt and follow my template for the rest. Main thing is that I'd not bother changing things that are invisible to the reader, like the difference between unicode and characters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you expand your thoughts on bulleted lists? Is it an aesthetic reason, or because you don't like 16 damn bullets in a row? bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, never thought to articulate it, but it wastes space in a very narrow box, does nothing to make anything more legible or organized compared to the break command commonly used and, most importantly, I don't like the way that it looks. Bulleted lists are fine in other contexts; I have one very prominent one in my MiG-3 article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For things like dashes and spaces, WP:MOS has more answers than anyone can ever possibly need. The nbsp character has a particularly important use between numbers and units which is heavily used in our articles - if I had a penny for every time I've written 12 in guns.... Regarding your question about armour, I don't think there is a clear answer. The most appropriate thing to do will probably depend on the class and the time period - the "armoured belt" is irrelevant on a protected cruiser, the "deck armour" is of little importance on a 1900 pre-dreadnought and becomes more and more important on battleships which fought later and later in the century, etc, etc... Trying to codify things at this stage is probably unhelpful. The Land (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Early ironclads certainly didn't contemplate the dangers of plunging fire, as the ranges that an enemy could be engaged made it very unlikely, since trajectories would be largely flat. Only as ranges greatly increased did nations realize the dangers, being what sunk the Hood, for example. I think that an order such as this would be acceptable, yes? Belt (and upper and lower belts if applicable), Bulkheads, Deck(s), Conning Tower, (these grouped as they are primarily structurally-related), then Turrets (main, large secondaries), Barbettes, then Casemates. Long worded, yes, but what are your thoughts? SpellingGuru (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: I've been tabulating a lot of BB-related data in Excel spreadsheets (one for dates, one for tech data), as a personal project, and use that order for consistency :-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpellingGuru (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put them in order of thickness? That seems a lot simpler. Yoenit (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. The only reason why I might hesitate is that a reader may wish to compare two different ships, but in most cases, it's apples to oranges anyway, so I'm not worried. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to either of those methods being used in articles. Both will yield strange results; putting the 'armoured belt' first is silly on a monitor or a protected cruiser, putting 'thickness first' is strange on (say) the Iowa class whose largely irrelevant forward bulkhead happened to have the greatest armour thickness. For this sort of reason, I do object to a guideline codifying what order "should" and "shouldn't" be used, this is something that can be left to editors' judgement. The Land (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a great point, but we should be consistant. What makes the most sense for a ship should apply across the class and similar classes of the type and/or era. Indeed, that could be our guideline: "do what makes the most sense, but do it consistantly", kind of like the she/it solution. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I start with waterline belt armor, but after that it's all up in the air as I add or subtract fields as appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)