This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fairfield, Stockton, Lagan and MacLellan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 501st Legion (Star Wars) 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/501st Legion (Star Wars) 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 high-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. GrapedApe (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Question, you have removed some of my good faith edits, mainly links I have added to other articles. An example would beHMAS Adelaide (1918), my standard on adding links is my young son, he often gets frustrated when reading an article and has interest in another subject on the current page he is reading and has to open a new page on his browser and type in the word. An example here would be midget submarine. I base adding links to something I think a younger person would be interested in reading as a follow up to the subject he or she is currently ready, and to give the reader quicker and easier access I added the link to midget submarine which you later removed. My question is if the link does not hurt the current page why remove it? I can see not adding links to subjects such as ice, water, air or a basic subject but my link to midget submarine to me seemed a positive addition to the page. Is there a guide line for what subjects we should and should not link?

Thank you for your help in this matter. --duanedonecker 7:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The main guideline for linking to other articles is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, with the section on Overlinking and underlinking being the most relevant. This recommends (among other things) that links should be "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". It also advises against linking "names of major geographic features and locations", which I personally define as nations, states, and major cities, particulatly if there is an adjacent or near-adjacent link to a more specific location.

Above and beyond this, one of my personal considerations is to avoid misleading readers by connectiong two or more links in a single "block of blue" where possible. To quote the alt text from this XKCD comic "I hate when I read something like '... tension among the BASE jumpers nearly led to wingsuit combat ...', and I get excited because 'wingsuit combat' is underlined, only to find that it's just separate links to the 'wingsuit'; and 'combat' articles." Having [[midget submarine]] [[attack on Sydney Harbour]] together runs the risk of people looking for either target ending up in the wrong article, and in this context, the attack link is more relevant to the article than the sub link.

Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thank you so much for your help!! --duanedonecker 8;05, 18 January 2013 (UTC0 —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn, I was wondering what your opinion was on the HDML's and whether those that were reclassified as SBD's should be named as such. Example: HMDL 1321 and 1324 were both reclassifed as SBD's during their post war service. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no specific thoughts on the matter, beyond the usual "most common name" argument...are they more famous andor better known for their wartime or post-wartime service? -- saberwyn 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

These two are better known as HDML's due to their war careers. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Hi, I was hoping you'd revisit the Peter Wray article and let me know what you think please. Hexrei2 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking of me... I've never visited the article in the first place. -- saberwyn 23:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, given that you're one of our experts on the RAN, could you please weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36#Hyphenating Royal Australian Navy classes. Please do disagree with me if I'm wrong! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm choosing not to comment because I really don't have an opinion on this one, although I suspect there's not enough consistency to justify an exception to the rule here. Most of my books are in storage at the moment (just moved, haven't had time to get new bookcases), so I can't do a survey to see what the sources favour. -- saberwyn 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. As I'm a one man band here, I suspect that I'm not in the right ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn, it's The Dart here. I have contributed to several articles on Naval history since you welcomed me to Wiki editing, but I have recently been having problems with the main editorial consortium (monopoly) on 'The Bismarck' & related "Last battle of the battleship Bismarck' articles. No matter how many citations I provide for my additional evidence, the following editors continually delete my contribution. Parsecboy & Wdford. Even though I quote highly respected experts such as Antony Preston, David L. Mearns, Capt. Donald McIntyre, Rear Admiral G.G.O. Gatacre RAN, Iain Ballantyne and others, using the proper Wiki protocols and clear concise English, they continually throw out my work claiming it's rubbish. I believe that as these two articles stand they exhibit a very strong German bias and are not NPOV, which is why I add the RN point of view which is fully supported by my references. Just wondering if you have ever encountered these two bigoted bullies as editors. Parsecboy (3.262 Lightyearsboy I call him) claims to be an Administrator and threatens to block me if I don't tow his line. What can I do about this?The Dart (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) As an example of some of my work on other sites, you might check out Nelson class battleships or HMS Rodney (29) to see what I am capable of. I have had no problems with disputation there. Indeed, I have had friendly discussions with other editors who agree or don't object to my work.The Dart (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been mentioned specifically, allow me to clarify what The Dart claims. He violated BLP by making disparaging remarks here; I advised him to remove them. When he rejected that advice, I informed him that BLP is non-negotiable and that the alternative would be blocking his account. He then removed the problematic line. We are now hunky-dory, at least on that count.

As for treating his edits as rubbish, as far as I can tell, he only made two edits to the Bismarck article, one that damaged formatting, and a second that was problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which because it confuses verification of the hit (which it is not) and verification of the claim (which it is, and superfluous to what is already in the article), and it is a primary source, which cannot be used for such things. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn, I have actually tried to make other edits but they have instantly disappeared or not been saved due to edit conflict. As an Administrator does Parsecboy have priority over saved edits even before they're saved? Any way I have decided to abandon all hope of countering the blatant German bias in these articles. They claim that the British side of the story is 'Propaganda' but the German survivors story is 'Fact' and disregard Mearns and Ballantyne as not reliable but allow their German references, Garzke, Zetterling & Mullenheim to dominate the historical record on the topic. Plainly I am wasting my time with these two and have become so frustrated by this experience that I probably wont bother to even consult Wikipedia again on Naval topics. I will be posting my annoyance on the Wikipedia Review website, where I notice Parsecboy's name has already appeared several times before as a reason for people abandoning Wikipedia. Thank you and goodbye, I am out of here. I have got more important things in my life to worry about.The Dart (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm... not sure what I'm expected to do here. -- saberwyn 13:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Er. Nothing! Thanks for your perseverance, you can't fight ignorance I guess. These people are living in denial and I don't mean Egypt.The Dart (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn, the Rodney Vs Bismarck sceptics (a new pair) are at it again on the Nelson-class battleship talk page if you have any interest in the subject.The Dart (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

Hello, Saberwyn. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page.
Message added 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thank you! Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (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) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

I understand you are a major contributor to this article so, since I am planning to nominate it towards GA status, I was wondering if you were interested in enacting a cooperative nomination of this article. Please respond on my talk page. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to nominate the article, go for it. I'll help out where I can, but be aware that I'm not particularly invested in the topic: my main interest is in the British and Australian era of her career. -- saberwyn 11:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

remove external link to image. Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of having an external link on a disambiguation page that goes to a single image of one of the disambiguation items (without specifying which)? At the time I also thought that we already had the image on Commons, but its from a different perspective. -- saberwyn 12:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it was a dab page, I would agree with you. But it isn't a dab page - is it? (i.e. I may be wrong, but if so, I'd like to know how/why I'm wrong.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A ship index page is for most intents and purposes a disambiguation page, just allowed to break a few of the rules (specificity, the "one link per entry" rule and the inclusion of content common to all/majority of entries, like battle honours). All other dab page rules and conventions apply. -- saberwyn 21:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Saberwyn! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMAS Choules (L100) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 45151172.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Humanitarian supplies being unloaded from ''Largs Bay'' at Haiti]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've filled out the description of the boat and have been poking around trying to find out what kind of work is being done to preserve her in preparation for a GA nomination. The AE2CF site doesn't describe much after 2010 other than the commemorative plaques and I'm more interested in legislative and physical measures for which info seems to be lacking. Do you know of anything?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but will see if I can come up with anything. -- saberwyn 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I still need to add the results of the 2008 expedition in more detail, but there doesn't seem to be much out there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've found some bits and pieces and added them to the article, but I think I've exhausted all at-hand sources (although Beneath the Dardanelles: The Australian Submarine at Gallipoli looks pretty solid... I may need to track down a copy). -- saberwyn 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Contact me off list about that. I might know a source. I've only skimmed it, but it didn't contradict any of your earlier work so I haven't gone through it in detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone back through the article and made a few tweaks, see if they're agreeable. Read Beneath the Dardanelles, but it's really just matching accounts from Stoker and the Turkish destroyer captain about AE2's time in the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmora. We could use that info to expand the account of AE2's activities then if you think that that's worth pursuing, although I think the article covers that well enough already. The other issue is about the commemorative plaques, we probably need to establish which ones have been installed and add those to the article, but the AE2 Commemorative Foundation hasn't said much in the last three years, so plans may have stalled. What do you think? I suppose we could contact the Foundation and ask ourselves, although that might be a bit hard to source as I'm not sure how to cite a personal email.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look over the next couple of days. As for getting an RS about status of the plaques, 'encourage' them to do a press release updating the status of the Foundation's various activites? -- saberwyn 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That would work. Do you want to, or shall I?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More than happy for you to take lead on this... I don't have as much free time as I'd like at the mo. -- saberwyn 08:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just tried to email the contact address from the foundation, but it was rejected as no such address. I guess I'll try one of the other addresses on the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's... promising :P -- saberwyn 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

As one of the parties involved in the recent back-and-forth at the article HMAS Otama, I invite you to come to the article's talk page and discuss potential ways forward. -- saberwyn 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice images of INS Sahyadri. Would it be possible for you to get the close-ups of the VLS systems of the ship? It has an 8 cell system for BrahMos and supposedly also a Barak SAM system with probably 24 or 32 cell. Images of any of them would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 05:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a few photos already loaded of the weapons. File:RAN-IFR 2013 D2 69.JPG has a closeup of the bow section, including an armature for a missile launcher (above and behind the turret), and what looks like a 16-cell VLS. Sorry its a little blurry... this was about the point that my primary camera started crapping out and I had to switch to backup. File:RAN-IFR 2013 D3 171.JPG has a sideview of the forward turret and the armature launcher, while File:RAN-IFR 2013 D5 16.JPG has a forward view. I can trawl through my other photos to see if I have anything better, but like I said, the first photo was when my camera was having problems, and the other two didn't put me in a situation with enough elevation to see the forward Very Loud Surprise. -- saberwyn 07:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it seems quite a good shot.....looks like a 16 or 24 cell VLS to me and considering it's size, it could be Barak CIWS. I'll try zooming the full res image and crop it..will let you know if it yields a good clarity one. Cheers and thanks a lot, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 07:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find any better photos, sorry. However, was able to find some tech specs in a local naval magazine for Sahyardi, which describes the missile load including 8 Novator Alfa Klub-N in VLS silos, 4 octople Barak VLS anti-missile missiles (which would gel with the 16-cell VLS in my photo), and an Shtil launcher for 24 anti aircraft missile (the armature launcher) <ref>((cite journal|date=October 2013 |title=Foreign Warships of IFR 2013 |journal=The Navy|publisher=[[Navy League of Australia]]|volume=75 |issue=4|pages=27 |issn=1322-6231))</ref> A decent enough source until you find an edition of Jane's or something to use. -- saberwyn 03:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SPS Cantabria (A15) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ' performed 63 replenishments, including 10,500 cubic metres of fuel, was involved in the first [[vertical replenishment of an [[Anzac-class frigate|''Anzac''-class frigate]] by an [[MRH-90]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if the recent additions you made to the collision article might constitute rather too much detail? Sentences like, The Law Institute investigation, and subsequent investigations by receivers appointed in 2010 found multiple issues, including full legal fees being charged despite agreements for a discount on Voyager cases, double payment of disbursements (one payment to whoever provided the service, the other to Hollows Lawyers), doing work for multiple clients then charging each individual client the full cost, and "writing back in" costs previously written off bills seem to me a bit elaborate for an article that is really about the collision. The occasional reader who is looking for that kind of information has only to click on the links. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank, and Saberwyn are hereby awarded this Chevron with Oak Leaves award for the roles that each played in assisting with the creation of the 63-article Featured Topic Battlecruisers of the World. Since each of you have an equal claim to an award for the years long effort that they put into the total project by working on their corner of it and each of you has made contributions of truly incredible quality or importance in the area of military history, culminating in the completing the single largest FT to date on Wikipedia and passing a milestone by bringing an entire classification of ships - battlecruisers in this case - up to GA-Class, A-Class, or FA-Class. As Majestic Titan editors, you are collectively being recognized for this outstanding accomplishment with this shared WikiChevron with Oak Leaves Award, the first of its kind to be award to a group of editors. Congratulations to each of you for your outstanding achievements, and keep up the good work! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle honour may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HNoMS Uredd (P41) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''HMS ''P41''''' was a [[Royal Navy]] [[British U class submarine|U-class submarine built by [[Vickers|Vickers-Armstrong]]. She was

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a link which references the dummy cable at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cocos#cite_note-18, if you are happy with the ref, please remove your clarification request dated nov 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyf1 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of ship commissionings in 1916 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ! 21 October<ref name="Brisbane">[http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-brisbane-i) navy.gov.au :: HMAS Brisbane (I)]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMAS Coonawarra may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |caption=[[Ship's badge]] of HMAS ''Coonawarra'']]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMAS Swan (D61) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• South Wales]] on 22 January 1913.<ref name=SPC>((cite web |url=http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-swan-i) |title=HMAS Swan (I)|work=Ship Histories |publisher=Royal Australian Navy |accessdate=21 November

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Just wondering why you deleted the category of Darts Venue? It hosted the 2013 Sydney Darts Masters.--Kpaspery (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the category is justified, giving the subject of the article. Categories are meant to be for the defining features of an article. Luna Park is, first and foremost, an amusement park...that's what its famous for. If Luna Park was being used regularly as a darts venue, then adding the category would make sense. However, this was a one off event, held in a single multi-purpose building that over the course of 7-10 days could be a darts venue, a wedding venue, a trade show venue, and a metal gig venue. -- saberwyn 05:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Sloppy editing. I have added the 2013 Sydney Darts Masters to the appropriate section and re-added the category.--Kpaspery (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think its an appropriate category. Being a darts venue is not a significant or defining characteristic of the subject, any more than being a boxing venue or a video games exhibition venue. How many times in the amusement park's 70+ year history has the amusement park been used as a darts venue? Once. -- saberwyn 01:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMS J4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''J1'' and ''J4'', plus ''Platypus'', sailed on 10 February 1920 for [[Geelong, where a submarine base was established.<ref name=Bastock86/> Apart from local exercises

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have left response for you on the Talk page of SS_Kate_(tug) best regards Whodidwhat (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the HMS Otus (S18) page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the HMS Opossum (S19) page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Great work tracking down one of these ships! Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

	Thanks
	Thanks for the feedback, Saberwyn. Am not sure if I made a mistake, but have re-read everything and the HMAS Sydney search article looks OK. Have standardised RAN/R.A.N. and added a comma! Am not sure how to contact you otherwise! Pjmpjm (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for the edits. If you ever need to leave a user a message, you can always just start a new section on their user talk page, or (if they made the first move), respond on your own page or the article talk page and deploy one of these elegant and finely crafted ((talkback)) templates to attract their attention. -- saberwyn 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Gday. It might have come up on your watch list but if not I have done a bit of work on HMAS Berrima today. That said I really don't know much about ships, so I was hoping you might be able to run your eye over the article and check I haven't got anything wrong. In particular I changed date it was sold for breaking up from September 1939 to 1930 (per several different sources available online). Not sure where the original date (1939) came from but I'm a bit concerned I have somehow missed something. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. In particular I don't have Bastock but it was originally listed as a source and I wonder if there might be some important details in there. Is there any chance you have this source and could cross check? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have Bastock (they only printed 750 copies), but theres a library I can access that does. Won't be for a weekend or two. I'll read the article over during the week anyway and fiddle as appropriate. -- saberwyn 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If its not too much trouble that would be greatly appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Should be able to look at Bastock tomorrow. You just need Berrima, or are there any other vessels from the era you'd like me to look at? (its a reference book, so I can't take it home with me) -- saberwyn 07:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Howdy - thanks muchly. Only Berrima - I just happened across it as part of the backlog drive and decided to try my hand. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

This is a note to let the main editors of AHS Centaur know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 14, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Australian Hospital Ship Centaur was attacked and sunk by a Japanese submarine off North Stradbroke Island, Queensland, Australia, on 14 May 1943, killing the majority of those on board. She had been launched in 1924 as a combination passenger liner/freighter, operating between Western Australia and Singapore. Following her early-1943 conversion to a hospital ship, Centaur served as a medical transport between New Guinea and Australia. Before dawn on 14 May 1943, while on her second voyage, Centaur was torpedoed. Of the 332 medical personnel and civilian crew aboard, 268 died; the 64 survivors had to wait for 36 hours before they were rescued. The incident resulted in public outrage as attacking a hospital ship was considered a war crime under the 1907 Hague Convention. Protests were made by the Australian and British governments to Japan. Despite this, it was not until the 1970s that identity of the attacking submarine, I-177, became public. The reason for the attack is unknown, and the events surrounding the sinking of Centaur are controversial because she may have been in breach of the international conventions that should have protected her. The wreck was found in 2009. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

scuttling
Thank you, editor working from a rich slab and library, for quality contributions to articles on ships and their destinies, such as scuttling, for gnomish cleanup with telling edit summaries and assessment, for adding a moving image which "summarises the entire article", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

precious again, today's hospital ship. We will watch it, enjoy your vacation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

Hi Saberwyn, I'm going down to Melbourne in a couple of weeks and, if the weather cooperates, am planning to travel out to Williamstown to photograph the two Canberra class ships fitting out. Could I ask where you took File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG from? - was this from the wharf where HMAS Castlemaine is moored? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Its from one of the wharves in the Seaworks Maritime Precinct, which is a little closer to the shipyard and doesn't have a marina of sailyachts in the way. I think I was at 37°51′35″S 144°54′37″E / 37.859627°S 144.910281°E / -37.859627; 144.910281 for the shot. -- saberwyn 13:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As a somewhat belated follow-up, I trekked out to Williamstown, but unfortunately the Sea Shepard fleet was occupying the wharf at Seaworks and File:Future HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra at Williamstown June 2014.jpg was the best I could do. I stumbled across an excellent view of the two ships from Port Melbourne the next day (with completely sunny weather to boot), but hadn't brought the zoom lens for my camera with me! The two ships are certainly a very impressive sight. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

Brenna Harding, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunno2014 (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits which I beleive are wrong. Can you double check as I do not have access to my books. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure fictional patrol boats from Sea Patrol and Patrol Boat are outside that list's scope. -- saberwyn 10:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMAS Assault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LCM. 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) 09:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle and theatre honours of the Royal Australian Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campaign. 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) 09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gday. Have you considered putting this one through a GA review? It looks pretty good to me although I'm no ships expert. Given that a GA backlog drive is about to start tomorrow you'd probably have some luck getting someone to take up the review fairly quickly. I might even be able to have a look myself if time permits. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I avoid the formal review processes. I find I'm better off expanding articles to a decent standard at my own pace than trying to jump through hoops to improve one article to an Official Standard. That said, you and AustralianRupert have been doing a much better job of expanding RAN ship articles recently than I have, so bravo to you two. -- saberwyn 12:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the HMAS Ovens page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:DarkEldarWarriors.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I