This is an archive of past discussions with User:Parsecboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I was recently looking at the battle of Jutland article, which lead me to the grand fleet article, and then to the High seas fleet. On Grand fleet i found a partial order of battle at Jutland, which reproduced in a less complete way the one at [order of battle at Jutland] referenced by the battle article. Since I felt it a bad idea to keep essentially the same (complicated! and subtly different) list in two places, i just scratched the one at GF and linked to the OOBAJ article. I then found the HSF had just the same situation, so scratched that one too. I noticed it had some extra info so i copied that across, and I added some more names from Corbett's Naval operations. Today I noticed that it was you who had just added the order of battle to HSF. Hope youre not too put out about that, but I don't really think the exact same list ought to be in more than one place.
Corbett also has info about the submarines and airships and their commanders, though I have not got round to adding it yet, and also lists some british ships which were undergoing repairs. I was thinking that they probably ought to be mentioned, particularly since the list of ships which made it to Jutland is being used in articles about the whole fleet.
I was thinking that the HSF article ought to be expanded with more detail of what the fleet did etc, and how its numbers changed through the war. The kaiserliche marine article now has a history of the buildup of the german navy and a section on WWI. I would suggest the HSF article ought to be better integrated somehow with the KM article. I'm not quite sure though when the HSF as such came into existence. If it was basically just for WWI as with the grand fleet, then it might work as a 'main article' from the KM one doing the WWI stuff in more detail. The KM article is lacking in such detail at the moment. Sort of, the raison d'etre for the Kaiserliche Marine, but if KM contained a decent summary of the navy during the war, then it would be rather long. So it needs a sub article. Anyway, I'm rambling. having just spent some hours adding to the order of battle myself, i might feel a wee bit upset if someone came along and rubbed it out. Sandpiper (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I saw your removal of the order of battle. I had forgotten that there was a separate order of battle article for Jutland, and thought that the HSF article should have an OoB since the Grand Fleet did. Since the information is at the other article, it seems perfectly fine to me to not replicate the data in each of the fleet articles.
As far as I know, the High Seas Fleet was only created in 1913 (when Ingenohl assumed command), so it would be similar to the Grand Fleet in that regard. I agree that the article should be a "main article" for the KM article. As you may have noticed, I've been doing work on many of the individual ship and ship-class articles; eventually, I'll get around to improving the HSF article. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did. Havn't looked at the articles, but I was independantly thinking perhaps the German side was a bit underrepresented. Sandpiper (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it generally is underrepresented. Tarrant's Jutland: The German Perspective is a pretty good book, but it only covers the battles of the North Sea from 1914–1916. There's nothing on Spee, the operations in the Baltic, or Goeben's activities. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
All terribly romantic in a knights in armour sort of way, that business of Spee and cradock. one was as bad as the other, expecting to end up dead but going through the process of slugging it out. As a general point, I don't think we trace the history of the war very well. The way the articles on battles are structured, the campaign boxes dont automatically link, say, north sea to south atlantic and you don't get a feel for the cause and effect of one upon the next. We also miss some of the not quite battles where say, the germans sortied again after Jutland and did not simply give up after that battle.
Just read your nassau article: the standard description seems to be that Nassau's guns could not depress enough to hit spitfire. However, the first hand witnesses describe spitfire healing over more than she ever had before, and Nassau similarly tipped sideways during the collision. If they were trying to fire at that moment, then the deck might have been leaning as much as full gun elevation in normal times. Just a thought, was wondering how accurate that couldn't depress the guns line was. Have been reading about the jutland destroyer night actions: we don't have a good description of what happened. I never got a feel for the destroyers being blown to pieces from either the description here in the Jutland article, or say Massie, where the summary descriptions didnt put across to me how serious the fighting was. Show a signal lamp: two minutes later deck's a complete wreck with hundreds of shells being fired at point blank range. The short descriptions made the destroyers sound a bit wimpy, what with them all colliding with each other as well. I also got the impression from reading the detail that Scheer was demonstrating some skill and determination as he threaded through the destroyers. The initial impression from the short summary descriptions is that he was a bit of an idiot for getting in a mess with the grand fleet, and got panned for his second approach. But now i think it more a calculated risk which was certainly not a suicide mission. He really survived three contacts with a significantly superior force and pretty much got away with it. I have put some of the details now into two separate destroyer articles and am beginning to think a 'main article' night action at jutland could be quite long. I don't blame jellicoe for turning away from torpedos, which caused a lot of fuss at the time, but whether it was his fault or not, the night action was a real mess up. Notwithstanding what I said about Scheer, he shouldn't have been able to get away with it and perhaps he knew it. Sandpiper (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tarrant's account of the Nassau/Spitfire collision indicates that the Nassau heeled over 10 degrees when the ships collided, and that the forward guns fired as the ships scraped past each other. I'm not sure if the ship had settled back down by then, or if she was still leaning over; I doubt we'll find a source that is as specific as we'd need it to be to get the right answer. Just comparing Spitfire to Rheinland (you can use the figures standing on both decks to get a rough estimate of their approximate relative sizes), it seems unlikely that the Nassau's guns would have been able to depress low enough to hit the Spitfire directly alongside, even if the ship was totally level.
I think a separate "night actions" article would be worthwhile; Tarrant's book has about 25 pages on the night engagements. There seems to be quite a bit of worthwhile information that's not in the Jutland article. And yes, the Jutland article doesn't give any indication just how savage the fighting was during the British torpedo attacks. I agree with your assessment of the battle; I really don't think the failure to engage the Germans during the night was Jellicoe's fault; too many of his subordinates failed to report their sightings, and they also failed to engage the ships they did encounter. Jellicoe doesn't appear to have had the whole picture; it would have been irresponsible to commit his fleet to a night engagement based on spotty information (especially considering the British disadvantage at night fighting). My understanding is that decades of increasing regimentation robbed the RN officer corps of its "Nelsonian initiative", and so many commanders refused to act without express orders from their superiors. I think you're right; had the British been more on the ball, they would have badly mauled the HSF, perhaps even annihilated it (but given the German advantages in shells/propellant/handling and internal subdivision, etc., it probably would have been a costly victory). Also, Scheer seems to have been very determined to force his way through the British destroyers; both times his dreadnoughts began to turn away from the British destroyers, he immediately ordered "Durchhalten" and sent his ships back towards Horns Reef. It doesn't seem that he was going to allow anything to stand in his way. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Beatty has been criticised for his failures to send signals and the incompetence of his flag officer. The behaviour of the destroyers might perhaps suggest this sort of failing was totally widespread, so not so much Beatty's fault. There are a copule of eye witness descriptions of the collision in 'Jutland 1916 by steel and hart'
“
the two ships met end on, port bow to port bow, we steaming at almost 27 knots, she steaming at not less than 10 knots (perhaps 20 or more). You can imagine how the eigthth inch plate of a destroyer would feel such a blow. I can recollect a fearful crash, then being hurled across the deck, and feeling Spitfire rolling over to starboard as no sea ever made her roll. As we bumped, the enemy opened fire with their foc'sle guns, though luckily they could not depress them to hit us, but the blast of the guns cleared everything before it. Our foremast came tumbling down, our for'ard searchlight found its way from its platform above the fore-bridge down to the deck, and the foremost funnell was blown back until it rested neatly between the two foremost ventilation cowls, like the hinginf funnel of a penny river steamboat. Lieutenant Athelstan Bush. spitfire. p314
”
“
we sustained a direct hit on the forward group of lights and, soon after, rammed HMS Spitfire which had not seen us. The destroyer brushed against the 15cm gun in my casemate and ripped it and its carriage from the deck. Just a few seconds before the collision I had been looking through the telescopic sight on the right side of the gun but was then called away to my proper battle station of the starboard side, because destroyers were reported there. thus i stood right in the doorway of the middle casemate which lay between the two 15cm gun casemates. With the tilt of the ship, the armour plated door struck me on the right foot and the back. we believed the british ship to be destroyed at the time, especially as a great number of pieces of wreckage, both great and small, were floating round us. Cadet Heinz Bonatz, Sms Nassau p.316.
”
It does seem to me that it was pretty endemic: Malaya's captain, as well as the V BS commander, Rear Admiral Evan-Thomas both failed to report their sighting of the German fleet. Moltke also made a similar escape from the II BS dreadnoughts during the night; the British commanders had thought it better to remain semi-concealed in the darkness rather than attempt to destroy the battlecruiser.
Bennett's Naval Battles of the First World War has what I'm assuming is a paraphrased version of the first quote (some of the same phrases, but different in some places). It makes it seem as though the guns were fired directly during the collision, when the Nassau was heeled over 10 degrees. Something I read today (maybe Massie or Tarrant) state that the Nassau continued firing as the ships scraped by each other, but it's still not clear exactly what happened. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit long, but i was reading your bit in Nassau about Tirpitz fight for money. This does not accord well with whats in Herwig, Luxury fleet, which I used for the Kaiserliche marine article. so, big quote coming up
“
Fisher's Dreadnought and Invincible "leaps", coupled with the other reforms affecting personnel, training, gunnery, tactics, and fleet concentration, effectively blunted the German naval challenge of 1900. In terms of both quality and quantity, Fisher in 1906 torpedoed Tirpitz's calculated risk embodied in the 2:3 ratio. Superior German personnel and materiel were now a fiction. Moreover, Germany already spent about 6o per cent of her total income on the Army. Where was the money for the Dreadnoughts to come from? These ships entailed a cost increase of 15-20 million GM per unit over the last class of Deutschlands and, taken together with the requisite canal and harbour-channel dredging and widening (that between 1907 and 1918 cost 244. million GM), posed a horrendous dilemma. Failure to accept the British challenge meant, in effect, abandoning Tirpitz's master plan. Acceptance would inaugurate a monstrous naval race until financial attrition forced one of the participants out of the contest.
It is interesting to note that Tirpitz in 1906-7 did not once put forth the argument that Fisher's Dreadnought policy cancelled British naval superiority and hence accorded all other naval powers an equal chance to catch up. In fact, Tirpitz was deeply disturbed by the news of the "super" battleship and battle-cruiser building across the North Sea. Throughout the summer of 1906 he buried himself in his Black Forest retreat and did his best to avoid the Kaiser. For the latter had quickly recognized that the Dreadnought was, in reality, Cuniberti's design from Jane's Fighting Ships in 1903, and he once again harassed Tirpitz with his "fast capital ship" project.
58 "Luxury" Fleet
Tirpitz was in a quandary. A decision to build Dreadnoughts would now remove all camouflage from German intentions and make it clear to British leaders that Berlin intended to compete with the Royal Navy. Such a mammoth fleet could not be hidden. But the cost factor was highly alarming. Tirpitz had carefully worked out his Etappenplan so that naval construction would be based upon the expansion of German industry and trade, that is, displacement of ships would be raised only slowly, about 2,000 tons per series, over an extended period, in order not to cause alarm in London and to keep cost increases within limits.
Tirpitz initially still hoped that he could get away with an increase in displacement to 16,ooo tons. German canal, harbour and shipyard facilities would be taxed to the utmost even with this increase; the locks at Wilhelmshaven restricted beam to 23.2 metres, and any ships of greater displacement than the Braunschweig or the Deutschland threatened to run aground in the Kaiser-Wilhelm Canal. On 22 September 1905 the decisive meeting concerning Dreadnought building was held in Tirpitz's Berlin office; the opening of parliament was, by then, only a few weeks away. The state secretary from the start placed a unit cost ceiling of 36.5 million GM on Dreadnoughts. The cost limit for battle-cruisers was simultaneously set at 27.5 million GM. The displacement of the new battleships was to be kept below 19,ooo tons. Tirpitz's staff came up with a figure of 940 million GM to be requested from the Reichstag - in addition to 6o million GM for dredging the Kaiser-Wilhelm Canal. Captain Eduard v. Capelle, Tirpitz's most trusted intimate, calculated that the naval expansion would necessitate an annual increase in taxation of 130 million GM. It was estimated that this budget would take the Reich as far as 1910-11, when a sixty-ship plan was to be laid before the deputies.
In other words, Tirpitz now decided to pick up the gauntlet that he felt Fisher had thrown him. For in order to stand a genuine chance against a British fleet in the North Sea, he could not allow his forces to be more than numerically one-third weaker than the enemy's. Nor could he permit British quality to be substantially higher than his own. If the master plan were to be salvaged, there was no choice other than to proceed with the naval race. Chancellor v. Bülow accepted the naval increases by 19 September 1905;
Wilhelm II gave his approval on 4 October 1905.
But there remained the Reichstag. The international crisis over Morocco was now exploited to the full for this purpose. In addition,
The Dreadnought Challenge 59
the Russian fleet's skirmish with British fishing trawlers off the Dogger Bank and Arthur Lee's indiscreet "Copenhagen" talk had whipped up public enthusiasm for naval increases. In May 19o6, after a final altercation with the Kaiser over the "fast capital ship" project, during which Tirpitz tendered his resignation in pure Bismarckian fashion in order to force approval of his plans, the expansion was passed as a Supplementary Bill .(Novelle). It called for the construction of six cruisers as well as the aforementioned outlay of 94o million GM for Dreadnought building and canal, harbour and dock improvements. The total constituted a 35 per cent increase over the Second Navy Bill of 1900. Two Dreadnoughts and one battle-cruiser were annually to be laid down.
The four ships of the Nassau series (Nassau, Posen, Rheinland, Westfalen) were laid down between June and August 1907 with the greatest secrecy ever attempted by German yards. In contrast
to the Dreadnought, the chief designer, Hans Bürkner, placed greater stress on protection than on armaments, and accordingly established the general principle that the thickness of the belt armour was to be equivalent to the calibre of the heavy guns. The first German "super" battleships were launched in 19o8 and completed in 1909-10 at an average cost of 37.4 million GM each, thereby surpassing Tirpitz's ceiling of 36.5 million GM.
Bürkner's insistence on optimum underwater protection resulted in a honeycomb type of hull subdivision; the Nassau had sixteen, and her successors nineteen, watertight compartments. This, in turn, required the wider beam which enhanced stability. But the main innovation centred round Nassau's armament. Reciprocating engines took up a great deal of space at midlength, and hence the mounting of the six turrets, all at the same level, was not very .successful. Superfiring turrets were out of the question as no room could be found for their magazines and lifts. Bürkner therefore had to choose hexagonal mountings with two turrets at the sides. This, of course, meant that in firing broadsides, Nassau had to do without two turrets (four guns) at the sides. The Germans were in (his way inferior in design to the British one-centre line, one-wing system. Only in firing forward and aft were the Germans able to bring a maximum number of guns to bear. In other words, trebling the number of guns resulted only in doubling the metal weight of broadside over the Deutschland class. Turbines were out of the question, partly because Tirpitz favoured them only for cruisers,
6o "Luxury" Fleet
and partly because the Navy Office's construction department had in 1905 still ruled that "use of turbines in heavy warships does not recommend itself". The Nassau class was outfitted with twelve 28 cm, twelve 15 cm and sixteen 8.8 cm guns, and eventually comprised the First Squadron of the High Sea Fleet.
German Dreadnoughts were known up to 1914 for their smaller calibre guns (28 cm as opposed to 3o.5 cm at first), their thicker armour (300 mm compared with 279 mm), and their slower speed (20 kn versus 22 kn). They were recognized as having better underwater compartmentation and hence greater stability. (Table 9).
That sounds like an interesting read. I've got to run off for a bit, but I'll read through it when I get back. I've actually got a couple of books on the building of the German navy: Goodall's By Order of the Kaiser and Weir's Building the Kaiser's Navy, I'll have to check them and see what they have to say. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this article again? some added a mess of tags today that i don't really think are justified, so I'd like to see your opinion, also could you have a look at rating it again? since its appears to have been waiting some time within the terrorism project page for a rating. thanks Sherzo (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WikiProject that is running as a Coordinator, it always gives me great pleasure when members get involved. Thank you, it really shows that some of the members truly car about the future of the WikiProject. Keep up the Good Work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. OliverThe Olive Branch00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I look forward to having more coords around after the election; there's always plenty of work to go around. And, we got some good coords during the last period by co-option, so I don't think it's a bad thing. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course not :) I'm getting my tonsils out on Friday, and I don't think I'll be able to do much while I'll still be on pain-killers. Good times, right? Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not really looking forward to it :) (and not just because I'll be away from the Wiki for the longest block of time since I started, lol) Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it has some things that aren't in Conway's and Gröner's. I'll have to bookmark that for when I eventually get around to working on Goeben/Yavuz. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Per regeuested "Monetary-disequilibrium theory" title change
Thanks, yeah, everything went ok. And the pain killers they prescribed me (a liquid version of percocet) isn't actually messing with my head at all. So here I am :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I am the IT Support Manager for Dr Challoner's Grammar School, the owner of the IP address from which you blocked edits today. Thank you for your notification of the block; the school fully supports this action and will be investigating the vandalism incidents leading up to the block.
I do need to inform you that in order for the block to be effective, you will need to also apply it to 62.255.252.75, our other proxy server. Outgoing internet access is load balanced between these two servers using Round robin DNS, so users' traffic may alternate between the two at any time.
Thanks, I blocked the second IP address for the same length of time. It's a refreshing surprise to see someone taking responsibility for the network they supervise. All too often schools don't bother to keep an eye on what their students are up to. I think I can safely say that Wikipedia as a whole appreciates your vigilance! Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent Diablo 2 Edit
I've provided canonical references for the Diablo 2 Multiplayer section, which has been cited as not having any references. In addition, I've included the most recent patch information, the upcoming 1.13 that is taking community contributions on the Battle.net forums.
I know! I didn't realize it until I was writing that section on Seydlitz, and noticed that Jutland was delayed by the mine damage the ship had incurred at Yarmouth/Lowestoft—there's no way the battle of the Gulf of Riga happened in between (that and the fact that Riga was in 1915, of course :) ). I wonder how I missed that for so long... Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There is section "Major armistice infractions" under the timeline of battles during Korean War.
It makes sense to update those events (unless someone make new page containing infractions between two Korea) since the war is not really ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadrun (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you link to the section you're talking about? I'm looking through the table of contents and can't find what section you mean. I also tried searching (using the "ctrl+f" tool) for the words you mentioned ("major armistice infractions"), and I could not find anything. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If you go to the top right of the Korean War page, there is a box named Korean War which contains battles(operations) in time sequence. I think I confused you by saying "section" on first paragraph. Sorry about that.Kadrun (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, it's the Template:Campaignbox Korean War that has the armistice infractions, not the article itself (that's what I was missing). You might want to bring the issue up at the template talk page, but I don't know if there are any editors who are monitoring it. I don't think there are any editors who are actually working on the Korean War article right now (I just keep an eye on the talk page and try to help out people). It might be more productive to bring it up at the WP:MILHIST talk page, where the wider military history editors might be able to help. Of course, if you know exactly what needs to be added to the template to make it more complete, you can always just do it yourself :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Relisting
I see what you mean, about the relisting not being necessary, but does it matter? I mean, is there any harm done in relisting something that doesn't "need" more input? It wouldn't force a five-day delay or anything... -GTBacchus(talk)20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I won't move it again. :) I was just wondering. I don't think I've relisted for that reason before, and it was sort of a whim. Now I know what happens when I do that. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk)21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.
For your hard work
The Airborne Warfare Barnstar
To Parsecboy, for his extraordinarily hard work editing, maintaining and generally helping out on articles about airborne warfare. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've reviewed the article SMS Roon for its nomination for Good Article statusand believe it fulfills all the requirements, so I have passed the article. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've reviewed the article SMS Seydlitz for its nomination for Good Article status. I have some issues with the prose, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the reviewor individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there.When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to re-evaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thinking out loud...
...maybe we should IAR and change "artefacts" to "artifacts". I know that the former is the proper BE spelling, but I don't know anyone in the U.S. who uses that, and I think that the Brits use both...IMO, it's better to cater to both sides than have U.S. editors try to change a perceived typo all the time. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe bring it up on the talk page? I don't have a problem with spelling it either way (and if the British do indeed use "artifact" too, then we might as well use that and save us all the time wasted by reverting, right?). Interestingly enough, I learned that it was the BE spelling by attempting to change it myself, quite some time ago :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for SMS Seydlitz
On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Seydlitz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Parsecboy, are you going to deal with the "oppose" from the Amagi class battlecruiser A-class review in the next short period? If not, I'm going to fail it as soon as tomorrow, as it gets one month since opening (but that would be regretful considering its supports). Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I plan on discussing this with Ed, and banging out a short section on Akagi this afternoon. Thanks for reminding me! Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Starcraft
You said: "(It's not really tied to the US, though. Is every car produced by Ford or GM part of WP:US, for example? Things like national birds or parts of govt. belong to the national projects, not other stuff)"
Yes, it should be. Although companies tend to be of the wikiproject of the state in which they are headquartered. French cars have French WikiProject, Korean cars get the Korean WikiProject, etc. Why should it be different for the US. And you removed South Korea, which has been documented to have a very special affinity with Starcraft. Please do not blindly revert my edits. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not "blindly revert[ing]" your edits; the article is not within the scope of the project. Things that are at best tangentially related to a project aren't in the scope. As for cars, the Ford Ranger, F-series, Fusion, and Taurus, to name a few, are all tagged only for WP:AUTO, not any of the state or country projects. And as for French cars, the Renault Voiturette isn't tagged with WP:FRANCE, and neither are the Renault 21 or Peugeot 206, for example. While South Koreans do have an affinity for the game, that still doesn't mean it's within the scope of the project. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In that case, let's look at the scope of the projects.
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States: "WikiProject United States was formed to unify and coordinate all things USA on Wikipedia and help to maintain The USA Portal. Some project goals are to help list and categorize USA related articles, develop quality standards for articles and build templates that help users browse the dozens of articles that would fall under the this project's watch. This project will also provide a place for U.S. Wikipedians and other editors to share information and resources. Here editors can ask for help with certain articles and bring otherwise overseen articles and problems to the attention of other editors." - I do not see anything that would exclude something like Starcraft from this project. The scope of the USA project and its daughters includes anything significantly related to the United States.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea: "The scope of this project extends to all articles related to Korea. There are currently 7723 articles under the scope of WikiProject Korea. Our goal is to make Wikipedia an outstanding source of information for Korea-related topics. This includes:"
Yes, they are vague, but when I look at the scopes I see nothing that would suggest that those things would be excluded. If you feel that it would still be inappropriate, why don't I start discussions on the respective talk pages and ask the projects to clarify their scopes? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
My point is that projects should only cover things that are directly related. For example, at WP:MILHIST (probably the largest and most active wikiproject), there was a recent discussion over scope for biographical articles. It was decided that only bios for people notable because of their military service should fall within the project's sphere (with a few exceptions, like John McCain, since it is a major part of his political career). People who served in the military but are not known for their service (for example, Jimi Hendrix or Elvis Presley) are not within the project's scope.
The thing is, the purpose of wikiprojects is to provide a place where people interested in a specific topic (be it military history, trains, or the United States) can work on articles about that topic together. It's not to slap a template on every page that is somehow, in some tortuous manner, related to the project, and leave it at that. Yes, Starcraft was produced in the US, but I don't see how this fact is anything but a coincidental (and thus essentially meaningless) connection (just as it's merely a coincidence that I was born in the US and not Zimbabwe while I'm here, a short rant—nationalism is one of the worse plagues on humanity, because we're basically arguing about the "fact" that being born on one side of an arbitrary line makes us better than everyone else, but that's for another discussion). There is a little more to the relation to South Korea and the game, since it is something of a phenomenon there; it may actually fall into Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture. Parsecboy (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought of asking the people on Commons after I sent that :p
Yup, although I don't think it's official until 1:37 this afternoon (although it might have been 1:37 AM, I always mix it up) :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have added some sourced material on the talk page. If you want to incorporate some or all of it into the article, in your own words (or mine-- I don't care), I will review it and compare it to the source. I'd add it myself but it's probably better to let those closest to the article do it. Regards, und alles Gute zum Geburtstag! Kablammo (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Danke! Yes, I saw the information you had added to the talk page, but I was back home for the weekend, and I didn't really have much time on here. I'll add it to the article, probably this afternoon. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Westfalen NYT refs (whenever you want ot do the article) and general stuff....
Not in chronological order!
[2] and [3] Title: "Rival Sea Powers Launch Big Ships"
[4] and [5] ("of which six alone were sunk by the battleship Westfalen in the course of the night attacks") ... this one claims that Germany won the Battle of Jutland, I think. o_O Propaganda ftw.
[6] and [7] Title: "Britain's right arm in home waters"
[8] and [9] Title: "Germans admit E-23 hit warship"
Hmm, I can open the links to the first snippet, but the full .pdfs won't open; I just get a blank screen. It said something about Adobe not working, but I just opened one of my own documents. Wtf, Ed? Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The second one is actually pretty interesting. I wonder how much of that is "fog-of-war" induced confusion and how much is outright lies/misrepresentation. I do know that the German navy did try to hide the fact that the battlecruiser Lützow had been sunk, but it seems that the statements about damage inflicted on the British is more of the former. It says that HMS Warspite was sunk (which of course it was not), but it omits the sinking of HMS Invincible. I wonder if they got the two ships confused? There were in fact 5 destroyers sunk during their nighttime torpedo attack (which seems to have been directed against the four Nassau class ships). It seems a common occurrence to overestimate the damage inflicted on an opponent (Beatty claimed to have sunk many of the German BCs, ships that later steamed into Scapa Flow, much to his chagrin). Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I know it is; it's the only one I read in full! :-) What you ask is a really good question, but it's probably one we won't know the answer too...unfortunately. Hope one or all of these help! —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Cnut
Can you please review the closing on the Cnut page. There are 7 votes to 4 (5 if you include the red link), the arguments for support are stronger, etc. Can you at least re-open it and relist it for another 5 for a fuller picture. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
7 to 5 (I see no reason to discount User:Лудольф's opinion) is, from a "just the numbers" perspective 58%, and I don't see the arguments for support as being all that much stronger than those for oppose (i.e, more modern specialist usage trends towards "Cnut", but general resources still favor "Canute" and it's still used more in common usage). I have, however, reopened the proposal. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least two of the opposes are based on misunderstandings (i.e. that Cnut is obscure scholarly usage, which is completely untrue). User:Лудольф's opinion isn't discountable (but would be discountable in proper wiki processes like ArbCom elections and RfAs), but he hasn't added any decent argument and so his weight can't be taken as the same as each of the 4 admins and five FA writers who supported this. You also didn't consider Srnec's opinion, who supported in the discussion above the vote (the poll was opened by the main opposer, who reverted a month-old move of the article and listed it at RM in the middle of a discussion). It is also of weight, surely, that all but one of the supporters are active in the editing area (Middle Ages), but none of the opposers are. Anyway, it doesn't matter now it's reopened.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I blocked both accounts indefinitely. If this guy doesn't get the message, the next step should be to take it to SPI, where a checkuser can identify and block the IP being used to create the accounts. Parsecboy (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Question for an admin
Hello, it's the annoying user who keeps asking you for help again! :) I need know about a certain Wiki policy - are anonymous users allowed to take part in discussions? For example, if a user proposes a change, does anonymous user's support count? I'm asking because I suspect that the user who proposed the change and the anonymous user who supported the change (without explanation) are the same person. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no problem :) Yes, as far as I know, anonymous editors can take part in any and all discussions on Wikipedia. But, as the old saying goes, Wikipedia is not a democracy; "votes" shouldn't be treated as much of anything unless there's also the reasoning for the position (for instance, a bureaucrat closing an RFA will probably ignore people who just typed "Support" or "Oppose" without an explanation). If you think there is an attempt to votestack going on (say, if the IP address has made few if any contributions before and since voting), you may want to bring it up at WP:SPI. I hope that helps :) Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude, I was totally kidding about the barnstars. But thanks anyway :))) Founder sounds good enough for me; the first action I'd take is to ban you. I'm sure that I could get money from -someone- to do it. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
why do you honour a WP:RM request which blatantly ignores huge ongoing disputes on article talk?
It is a well known trick to submit "discussions" at WP:RM when a move discussion is stuck on the article talkpage, trying to trick lazy admins into "endorsing" one side in a discussion they aren't even aware of. I imagine this is what happened here? regards, --dab(𒁳)08:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't particularly care for your insinuation that I'm "lazy" or was "tricked"; the discussion went the standard 7 days that all proposals at RM last, and there was only one objector to the move. The article was at the current title for some time; it was moved to Assyrian and Neo-Aramaic people on 3 December, and then moved again by you to the previous multi-title. The discussion on the talk page the following week (here) in no way indicates consensus for the name to which you moved the article. The article should have been moved back then, but wasn't, for whatever reason. If you don't like your move having been overturned, well, tough. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not what you think is best. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
frankly, I can see that you did not particularly care to find out what the objection was about. Wikipedia indeed operates by consensus, not by majority votes. I am sorry to imply that you have been "tricked", when it is in fact your approach to admin actions to ignore the issue in favour of counting votes. It may be worth considering that admin actions, too, fall under "consensus" among admins, not about what you happen to think is best as the third or so admin stumbling upon a complicated case. --dab(𒁳)13:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You don't know why I closed the move the way I did (you haven't even asked). Consensus != unanimity; 9 supports and one conditional support vs. 1 oppose is certainly a consensus amongst those editors who participated. And the one opposer's rationale wasn't strong—"haven't we been over this already?"—consensus can change, using previous consensus to stifle new discussions isn't a valid position.
Lastly, you don't even know me, so don't talk about me as if you do. You are being overly hostile to me (why I cannot tell), so I would prefer it if that was your last post on my talk page. Goodbye. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there were two editors conditionally supporting the move, one of them was me, and my condition was quite clear: I agree with re-creating an article Assyrian people, as long as it deals with only those people who consider themselves Assyrians.
It would have been useful and appropriate if you had indeed tried to get acquainted with the matter. This is not a discussion that can be voted over. By the way, may I remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy. The move you condoned is a grave violation of Wikipedia policies. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For your information, I am acquainted with the situation; I observed the discussion that went on the last time you guys went around with this. The other user who conditionally supported was "conditionally" so because he preferred another name, but understood that he was in a tiny majority, and so threw his lot in with the "Assyrian people" title. Yes, in fact, I can read.
You do not need to remind me of basic Wikipedia policies; to do so smacks of condescension, which I will not tolerate on my talk page. The move is in fact in perfect congruence with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and if you think otherwise, you are certainly entitled to bring my closure up for review at WT:RM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus. I unconditionally reject the move as it was done, which means there is no consensus, nor will there ever be one, as long as I and some other editors are around. May I again remind you that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)12:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Benne, consensus does not require unanimity. The vast majority of the editors who took part in the discussion supported the move; that is enough for consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Orpy. I've got a question for you. As you know, I've been working on SMS Roon for some time now. I took it to get assessed for B-class, and the reviewer pointed out a couple of areas that needed sourcing. I fixed the ones I could, and there's only one line remaining: this line about the ship having been decommissioned by 1911, that you added a couple of years ago. I was wondering if you remembered where you saw it, source-wise. The only thing I've been able to find online is this website, but I doubt it would qualify as a "reliable source". Once we get this last issue resolved, it should pass B-class and probably GA as well. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Parsecoby. So sorry for lateness of my reply. I haven't been on wikipedia in a while. In response to your question, I think I took it from this website. [17]. I'll see if I can find a printed source though. You did a great job on that article, congratulations. Orpy15 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Dispute over article move
Thank you for looking at my post about North Korea's nuclear program. Please look at my reply (in a few minutes). NPguy (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Bismarck
Hi Nate, recent work on the above has tightened up that 'controversy' section very well, good stuff. Intro expansion also useful, although do you need to be so specific about Bis. hoping to intercept convoys "from Canada to GB"? That makes it sound like the Germans were on the lookout for these or knew one was imminent. Any convoy she encountered would be fair game and massacred. Maybe think about amending this to say sth like "convoys to or from North America to Great Britain"? I'm not going to change or put on the talk page as is up to you but think that might be a useful change. Ta, Patrick. bigpad (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Your rewording seems spot on Nate. As to the other work that remains to be done, which I noticed you referred to in a subsequent post, would it be best to ask another administrator to assess the article and put the results on Talk in order that the points can be addresses if it fails to become an A-calss article? It's been "B" for far too long? I'm away now for 4 days but maybe you could do this in the meantime? bigpad (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the best route would be to put it up for a peer review through WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST, so we can have a number of outside eyes. The main problem I see with the article in regards to assessment is sourcing; there are definitely not enough inline citations throughout the article. Once that issue is addressed (and I think Ed and I might be tackling that sometime soon), we can consider nominating it for A-class. I'll probably create the peer-review page tonight or tomorrow sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
