|
User talk:Saberwyn/archive seven
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
Someone else uploading your photos onto FlikrIt's happening again, though at least this time you're being acknowledged: http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/5414993011/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/5415573078/ They're uploading the photos as copyright protected, however, rather than the CC-compliant licences which are legally required. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Talkback Message added 10:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Question about AHS CentaurHi there, is there any chance you can look at this question at the humanities reference desk? It's about the AHS Centaur and I figured that as the main contributor, if anyone can help you might be able to. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Pictures, many of themHey Saberwyn, as you are interested in Aussie ships, I have a feeling you're gonna like [1]. Specifically, Australia has quite a few photos in these two categories: [2][3]. There's a thread on WT:SHIPS about the uploads. Hope you enjoy! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC) USS Proteus (CVL-1)Hi, thought you might be interested in this. In the article it is alleged that the ship was at one time HMAS Sydney, as a hospital ship during the First World War? Not sure if this is correct? Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Australia photosFyi I'm about to go off to bed, I'll reply to any of your replies in about 6 1/2 hours. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Bastock doesn't mention the 1928 visit to NYC or the 1932-33 cruises, but identifies the December 1934 deployment to the Mediterranean as the first significant departure of Australia from the local region (pages 102-4, only had a brief look and forgot exactly what page it was on). Again with Canberra, no indication that she visited the US at any point in her career. That's about the best I can do in the immediate future...hope its enough. -- saberwyn 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearanceHello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)  HMS Ark Royal was an aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy that served in the Second World War. Designed in 1934 to fit the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty, she was built by Cammell Laird and Company, Ltd. at Birkenhead, England, and completed in November 1938. Her design differed from previous aircraft carriers. Ark Royal was the first ship on which the hangars and flight deck were an integral part of the hull, instead of an add-on or part of the superstructure. Designed to carry a large number of aircraft, she had two hangar deck levels. She served during a period that first saw the extensive use of naval air power; a number of carrier tactics were developed and refined aboard Ark Royal. She served in some of the most active naval theatres of the Second World War, including operations off Norway, the search for the German battleship Bismarck, and the Malta Convoys. She was torpedoed on 13 November 1941 and sank the following day. Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries; investigators were keen to know how the carrier was lost, given there were efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar. Several design flaws were discovered during the investigation and were rectified in new British carriers. (more...) histmergeHey Saber, do you want me to histmerge Australia with User:Saberwyn/HMAS Australia II? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Officers and menHi Saberwyn, I noticed your copyedit on the Ark Royal article. You changed the term "officers and men" to "officers and sailors". I thought you should know that the the former is the traditional term when referrring to a ship's comlement. Is there a reason you changed it? - Nick Thorne talk 22:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Australian hospital shipsCategory:Australian hospital ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Hood ACRI think that I've address all of your concerns for this ACR. I'd be obliged if you could take a look and see if there's anything else that still needs to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Barnstar
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC) DYK for History of Australian naval aviation
Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC) New RAAF battle honoursHi Saberwyn, do you know if the RAAF has had a process to assess and award retrospective battle honours like the RAN recently had? Someone has asked in the FAC of No. 79 Squadron RAAF why the squadron received its World War II battle honours in late 2010, and I don't know and can't find the answer. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Kelat (1881)Hi, do you know whether the coal hulk Kelat sunk at Darwin was ever commissioned in the Royal Australian Navy? I have just created the article and was not sure as I do not see any reference to her being commissioned, but you may know definitatively. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC) HMAS Cerberus disambiguationHi, I recently created HMAS Cerberus (disambiguation), as a number of ships have been named HMAS Cerberus. I placed a para in the article about other ships and establishments having been at one time named HMAS Cerberus II, III, IV, V, etc. Just seeing what your thoughts are? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have also had a go at Penguin which have also had ships and establishments having been at one time named HMAS XXXX II, III, IV, V, etc. If you disagree with anything I have done, please let me know. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Poole & SteelI have just created a stub on Poole & Steel, however note that alot of the usage on Wikipeadia shows the company as Poole & Steele. I have come across this plate which should clarify the spelling. Your thoughts?? Newm30 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC) SOV WindermereI have just created SOV Windermere, which is to be leased by the RAN. Do you believe that this should be included in the list of current vessels of the RAN or leave until lease expires and place in list of ships of the RAN? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Could we create a leased section on the list of ships of the RAN? That way the ship is identified as having being leased by the RAN? The leased section may also expand as some ships on the existing list may have only been chartered, therefore not being technically RAN ships but providing a valuable asset to the RAN. I can understand your POV as usually only requistioned/commissioned ships are placed in the list of ships of the RAN. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC) ThanksFor reverting this rather odd change to my user page. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011
HMAS MaitlandHi Saberwyn, and thanks for putting image of vessel into the panel - excellent idea. I do have some other images of the actual commission service which I want to put into a gallery on the HMAS Maitland page. However, I have noticed you have removed a gallery at Rhapsody of the Seas, where your edit summary advises, 'remove gallery (that's what Commons is for)'. I only noticed your edit history after I put the gallery up at HMAS Maitland and so checked out WP:IG. I didnt read anything that absolutely forbade use of a gallery in favour of Wiki Commons, as your edit on Rhapsody seems to imply (02:05, 15 April 2011; perhaps I misread your brief comment). But I did note acceptable guidelines for inclusion of galleries in wiki's image use policy. So I adjusted the gallery title and inclusions, accordingly. I am, consequently, interested in your opinion of the HMAS Maitland and Rhapsody galleries before I proceed further, and your interpretatiion WP:IG and gallery inclusion generally. Thanks, Peter Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
ThanksHi Saberwyn, and thanks for your work in reviewing the HMCS Thiepval article. Much appreciated! Tufaceous (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Funky resultsGreetings Saberwyn, You have a follow up message on my talk page regarding the USS Concord (1828) title.
Page issuesHello again Saberwyn, you've been a great help on the USS Concord (1828) page with the info box and italicization of page title, however there are a few issues you brought up that need some clarifying: SHIP IMAGE: On the Concord page you removed the image saying -- "Do not use a different ship in the infobox, unless they are the exact same design" -- but the USS Constellation (1854) is a Sloop of war as is the USS Concord (1828) so I'm afraid I'm not following you here. IMAGE SIZE: Here you state that -- "Images not in the lead section should not have size hardcoding" -- however MOS allows for image size adjusting if -- "there is a good reason to do so" -- and in WP there are often times many good reasons to do so, esp where text in the body or in a caption is involved. e.g.Often times staggered caption text can be corrected with just a small image size adjustment i.e."a good reason to do so". This is done out of concern for the readers. SEE ALSO: Here you maintain that -- "See also sections should only include articles that are directly related to the article's subject" -- yet MOS also states: Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." The links I had e.g.List of United States Navy ships and List of United States Navy people are certainly "peripherally related" as MOS allows for. My thinking is that the only way many of the articles ever get read here on WP is through a link, esp in see also. When I edit I always think of the reader first. They are the only reason why were are here. Chances are someone reading about the Concord would love to see a list of ships where he or she can instantly select another ship's article to read. This is but one example. There are (very) many others. I am assuming you have the best of intentions but from my experience it's usually best to remind fellow editors of issues only where there is a clear policy violation that will be detrimental to the readers. I would like to restore a few items on the page for the above reasons but before I do I would like to hear your feed back on these items, and if I'm wrong about any item(s) I will gladly stand corrected, and so you know that I mean well. Best of regards, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
New developmentThanks to the 'List of sloops of war of the United States Navy' you included on the Concord page I was able to easily check the spec's on sloops' whose dimensions come the closest to that of Concords and found two ships whose length, beam and draft are identical. See Concord's talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
IP 76.20.48.105Thanks. Reported at AIV. Salvidrim (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Main page appearance: HMAS Australia (1911)This is a note to let the main editors of HMAS Australia (1911) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 25, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC) New Page Patrol survey
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Anzac classI don't necessarily disagree with you that each article should have an overview of the design and construction, but when the content is exactly the same for each ship in the class, it makes far more sense to have the information in the main class article with a link to it from the individual ship articles, rather than duplicate the content across eight or ten separate ship articles. At some stage somebody is going to edit one article and not the others and all articles will end up being out of sync. If you really want the content in each article it can always be transcluded, which avoids that problem. That said, the main class article covers the entire class and, for the most part, individual ship articles should contain content specific to each ship, rather than general class overviews. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
HMAS StalwartHi mate a reply on the HMAS Stalwart talk page re it's final fate --Whodidwhat (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notificationHi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Nomination of Fire in anger for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fire in anger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire in anger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy training shipsCategory:Royal Australian Navy training ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy troop shipsCategory:Royal Australian Navy troop ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy survey shipsCategory:Royal Australian Navy survey ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy sloopsCategory:Royal Australian Navy sloops, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Former Royal Fleet Auxiliary shipsCategory:Former Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Photo opportunityHi, in case you haven't seen the story (or the ship), HMAS Choules is now docked at Sydney. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited HMNZS Charles Upham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. Collaboration on Nuclear submarine?Hi, I see that you're the major contributor of the article Collins class submarine; I'd like to know if you're interested in helping me write Nuclear submarine. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be calling it likely yet: there's been a lot of talk about nuclear boats as part of the Collins class replacement submarine project, primarily from lobby/special interest groups. For that to happen, most of the following need to occur: 1) Australia needs to acquire some form of nuclear-based infrastructure beyond a single research reactor, 2) The Australian government and public need to backflip on their stance against nuclear-ness, 3) The RAN needs to solve its submariner recruitment/retention issue, particularly with the issue of longer deployments the boats will be capable of and pressured into 4) Someone needs to be willing and able to sell Australia a nuclear submarine (either as design or fully assembled), 5) The aforementioned someone will have to abide by or negotiate around the Australian defence industry's "But Mummy, I wanna build it!" attitude. As for writing up the individual Collins, that's not something I plan on pursuing indepth in the near future because I've decided to stay away from FA and related processes. Also, material on the individual boats is sketchy, because the majority of their activities are (understandably) classified. -- saberwyn 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No idea how long exactly, but if we acquired nuclear submarines, we'd be the only nation in the world to operate them but not have nuclear power, and that doesn't happen overnight. We've got no civilian experience to draw on/recruit from, most/all training would have to be done overseas, and we'd be heavily dependant on the original owner-navy to provide technical support, repairs, parts, etc. Maybe the Yanks or the Poms would sell/lease/give us a submarine (or four+, which is the minimum number I personally think we need) but I think that's a level of political and inter-service interaction beyond what's currently on the table. The Indian leases of the occasional Russian boat are the only examples of a nuke sub in the hands of a non-building country, and I think that's tied to the Indians' construction of their own. Luring people from other Western militaries is something that's been happening since year dot; its because of an advertising campaign related to a recent tweak to the citizenship conditions that it's made the media recently. There are a few lobby groups saying that nuclear is the way to go (the Navy League of Australia is another group off the top of my head). However, considering that the Australian government has been saying no to nuclear propulsion since the start of the project, and the public perception of (and opposition to) anything nuclear, its going to take a lot of effort or the combo of serious desperation and a foreign navy/builder dangling cheap shinies to win hearts and minds. As for GA/A/FA, I'd be more than happy to help. -- saberwyn 03:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC) ASV Wyatt EarpHi Saberwyn. Just saw your article on ASV Wyatt Earp. Was wondering whether ASV Wyatt Earp was operated by the RAN, DMS and AHS or just AHS? Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Military Historian of the YearNominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject. The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. You're welcomeGlad you liked it. I had worked on Tarrytown Light for WP:NRHP, the first time I had ever worked on an article about a lighthouse, so there was a lot of learning to do. I've always found that story intriguing because so many people are so sure it really happened, and I began doing research on it. I realized it demanded a separate article so it would come up high in Google searches and people would be better informed (It now comes up at the top of the Google results for "I'm a lighthouse. Your call"). I see people are even linking to it in blog comments. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Book located at Australian National Maritime MuseumHi Saberwyn, I was wondering whether I could ask whether you could see whether you could locate some info regarding a vessel William and Ann which is located in the book Wooden Ships and Iron Men: The Story of the Square rigged Merchant Marine of British North America by Frederick William Wallace which is held at the Australian National Maritime Museum's Vaughan Evans Library? The 1924 edition has the ship on page 82 (shown on Google Books snippet view)? Can you assist? Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deletion notificationsHi Saberwyn. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Template:Commonscat inline listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commonscat inline. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commonscat inline redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Frisbee (ride)
A tag has been placed on Frisbee (ride), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)  The article 501st Legion (Star Wars) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Disambiguation link notification for April 6Hi. When you recently edited HMAS Manoora (1935), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Balikpapan and Battle of Tarakan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Battle of CocosGreat work with expanding this article! Your edit summary is rather modest given the extent of the improvement. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 20Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) HMAS Collins (SSG 73) Spelling matterActually even for British spelling the original one was incorrect. It would be 'manoeuvrability' rather then 'manoeuverability'? Yes, the American version is maneuverability, but wouldn't the lack of the 'e' also be present as per the MacMillan Dictionary? [7] Either way. 'manoeuverability → maneuverability' this is inconsistent with MacMillan. Strange how it did not default to the UK version, but either way the previous incarnation seems wrong in several dictionaries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Cite added. Solicitr (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Article by a Collins class skipperYou might find this article by the recently-retired captain of two Collins class subs of interest. It's one of the most clear-eyed assessments of the boats strengths and weaknesses I've seen. Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Dead link in article 'HMS Nelson (1814)'Hi. The article 'HMS Nelson (1814)' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?
This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
HMAS Westralia (1939)Hi Saberwyn. I just noticed that you moved HMAS Westralia (1939) to HMAS Westralia (1929). I am not sure that this works as she was not HMAS Westralia in 1929, only MV Westralia. Generally if we need to disambiguate requistioned/captured military ships, we disambiguate via year of commission, not year of launch. See HMS Fly for examples of when ships captured or requistioned are titled. I would prefer MV Westralia (1929) as a redirect, then HMAS Westralia (1939) as the RAN ship. Happy to seek concensus at WP:SHIPS. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. DanubeFirst of all thank you for your input. Anyway, I think you followed my Danube link to that table and I was hoping when you (and me) find some time, that we need to clear few unusual names (the one you added in citation).
Thanks for taking a look at the list. I am planning on giving the same treatment to the rest of the list as well, though your stab at it is also welcome. On the citations, each should have a corresponding entry in the bibliography. I have used WP:SHIPS featured list List of armored cruisers of Germany#References as a basis for how to do this one. They have a section for notes, citations, and bibliography. I was also taking the featured lists as a guide for adding a little blurb for each class, along with an 'at-a-glance' capability chart and ships in class list. That way there is a little more context there for the reader than just a bland list of ship names and dates. Josh (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Draft email to the AWMHi Saberwyn, I'd appreciate any comments you might have on an email I'm drafting to the AWM on the possibility of them releasing images under a CC-By license. I've started a sort-of centralised discussion of this at: User talk:Nick-D#Draft email to the AWM. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC) GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. ADV Ocean ShieldHi Saberwyn, just wondering whether you are looking to create ADV Ocean Shield, as she is arriving in Freemantle on Thursday? Shame about HMAS Choules being in dock for up to five months. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28Hi. When you recently edited ADV Ocean Shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Australian War Memorial eventWe're tentatively looking at August 25 for a photography taking session at the Australian War Memorial. (This may be subject to change.) Photographers would be allowed to license their pictures CC-BY and the primary purpose being to photograph some exhibits about the Great War before they close. This isn't about taking pictures of specific things, but of the exhibits inside. It would be in Canberra obviously but out of town people would be more than welcome. :) You can request funding from WM-AU for travel if you need it. As more details become available, such as the exact time and where inside to meet, I'll post on the Australian notice board. We'd love to see you there. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Nice work fixing this long-neglected article up. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Military history coordinator electionThe Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC) RAN WebsiteIt looks like the RAN has launched a new website today ...and has broken a lot (all?) of our links to it. Almost all the Seapower Centre publications have also vanished (though if this is like what the Army did a few months ago, they'll be re-uploaded over the next few weeks).
http://www.navy.gov.au/Navy_Marks_109th_Birthday_With_Historic_Changes_To_Battle_Honours and http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Units_entitlement_list.pdf are lined almost 250 times each. If a bot could replace those (once the new targets are found), it would make things a lot easier
They've put a nice explanation up on the "Page not found" template (see http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Farncomb for example). The relevant points for us are
Thoughts? -- saberwyn 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. Craft of Opportunity ProgramHi Saberwyn, I have found an interesting possibility that MSA Bermagui (IMO:374314), is now Bermagui II based in Sydney. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
