User talk:Toddy1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

right‎

Your contributions to Wikipedia have been good, especially your tireless work on the addition of naval history data Mike Young 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions to Wikipedia have been good, especially your tireless work on the addition of naval history data Mike Young 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime History Task Force

Hello, Toddy1.

If you wish to participate in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force, I recommend that you add your name here.

Regards, John Moore 309 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Toddy1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Thanks for your contribution on Royal Navy, by the way. RHB Talk - Edits 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User page redirect

I recently came across the following guidance on Wikipedia:User page:

If you would prefer not to have a user page, then it is recommended that you redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors.

Since it appears that you do not wish to maintain a User Page, I have taken the liberty of placing such a redirect on your own User Page. Please accept my apologies if this does not reflect your intentions. Regards, John Moore 309 13:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dnipropetrovsk

Hi, could you please restate your question. Sorry, I did not get it. To give you a general answer, I put all my preferences aside and, in accordance with WP:NC(UE) I use the most commonly used English name for the Ukrainian locations. The most objective way to determine the most common modern English usage is to analyze the usage of major players of the anglophone media market. I happen to have an access to LexisNexis which allows to analyze and compare different usage. As of now, the prevailing usages are Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk as far as these two cities are concerned. Please check here for a long and detailed discussion of the issue. --Irpen 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironclad warship

Hi there. I saw your interest in 19th century warships on the Maritme History Taskforce, and was wondering if you could have a look at ironclad warship, which I'm in the process of improving. Would be useful to have some comments! Many thanks, The Land 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Inflexible's armament

Hi, I just noticed your recent edit to Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. The statement which you deleted about HMS Inflexible's armament was not particularly bizarre, as it took between 2.5 and 4 minutes to reload the muzzle-loading main guns. -- Arwel (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have done, but that's no reason to say the guns were "useless for naval warfare". The Land 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply posted in discussion page of Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher.--Toddy1 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wooden steam warships

Please feel free to make edits to User:The Land/Wooden steam warship - I am waiting until it's largely complete before moving it into articlespace, but I'm keen to address the lack of coverage of this era... The Land 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Which article are you talking about? Colonies Chris 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Duncan class (1859) --Toddy1 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Those Canadian escorts

I've had a look - good work, it's not easy to make good articles on small ships. I did downgrade the later Kootenay to stub-class, because while the infobox is very complete there is not enough prose to count it as a 'start'. Regards, The Land 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 11:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:References

I added the reference to the edit in question at HMS Tiger (1913). I thought I had done so at the time, but I apparently forgot. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandboxes

[edit] Anglo-Egyptian War

I'm of a mind to revise a category I created Category:People of the Urabi Revolt to category:People of the Anglo Egyptian War. Would you have a preference here? Kernel Saunters 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Inconstant (1868)

Excellent work on the above article. You have made my stub into a masterpiece. Thank you! Gillyweed 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Sea Lords

Hi, you reverted my edits on the Template:First Sea Lord. I was just wondering why. My only intention was to bring it under the new standard template designs at WP:MILHIST#NAV. I would like to know what grieves you so much about the change to call it very unhelpful. Thanks Woodym555 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned succession boxes, i think succession boxes serve their purpose. The "state = collapsed" parameter had to be removed, that is all, not the change to a milhist navbox. Personally i think it takes up less space on the page if it is hidden, but if you don't want the compress feature activated then i won't. I don't think it is that much of a stretch for a any user to click on the Show button. Maybe i am overestimating people's common sense?
Unless you object i will add in the milhist generic navbox template but without the compressed feature: Woodym555 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
v • d • e
First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy

The Earl Howe • Sir Peter Parker • Prince William, Duke of Clarence • Sir George Cockburn • Sir Thomas Hardy • The Hon. George Heneage Dundas • Charles Adam • Sir George Cockburn • Sir Charles Adam • Sir George Cockburn • Sir William Parker • Sir Charles Adam • James Whitley Deans Dundas • The Hon. Maurice FitzHardinge Berkeley • Hyde Parker • The Hon. Maurice FitzHardinge Berkeley • The Hon. Sir Richard Saunders Dundas • William Fanshawe Martin • The Hon. Sir Richard Saunders Dundas • The Hon. Sir Frederick Grey • Sir Sydney Dacres • Sir Alexander Milne • Sir Sydney Dacres • Sir Hastings Yelverton • George Wellesley • Sir Astley Cooper Key • Sir Arthur Acland Hood • Lord John Hay • Sir Arthur Acland Hood • Sir R. Vesey Hamilton • Sir Anthony Hoskins • Sir Frederick Richards • Lord Walter Kerr • Sir John A. Fisher • Sir Arthur Knyvet Wilson • Sir Francis Bridgeman • Prince Louis of Battenberg • The Lord Fisher • Sir Henry Jackson • Sir John Jellicoe • Sir Rosslyn Wemyss • The Earl Beatty • Sir Charles Madden, Bt • Sir Frederick Field • The Lord Chatfield • Sir Roger Backhouse • Sir Dudley Pound • The Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope • Sir John Cunningham • The Lord Fraser of North Cape • Sir Rhoderick McGrigor • The Earl Mountbatten of Burma • Sir Charles Lambe • Sir Caspar John • Sir David Luce • Sir Varyl Begg • Sir Michael Le Fanu • Sir Peter Hill-Norton • Sir Michael Pollock • Sir Edward Ashmore • Sir Terence Lewin • Sir Henry Leach • Sir John Fieldhouse • Sir William Staveley • Sir Julian Oswald • Sir Benjamin Bathurst • Sir Jock Slater • Sir Michael Boyce • Sir Nigel Essenhigh • Sir Alan West • Sir Jonathon Band •

[edit] Categories

Could you work on putting links in the category boxes, such as adding

(see also List of battleships of the Royal Navy)

to the top of some categories? as I have here Mike Young 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Marlborough (1767)

Well spotted. I've given it a tweak and it seems to read fine now. Pip pip Benea 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Apologies for Dnepropetrovsk Discussion edit

For some reason I thought it was your edit, my apologies. I wonder who removed the views from even discussion that they dont agree with ?

[edit] Renames

Propose renaming a couple of articles you started:

When you get a chance, please let me know if this is appropriate. Thanks. Maralia 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I have no objection.--Toddy1 20:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC) However, it would probably be better to use "line-of-battle ship" as that is what they were called at the time. The term "battleship" is a contraction of "line-of-battle ship" and seems to date from 1882.--Toddy1 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, I was just about to ask you about that, namely "would you have any objection to 'Bulwark class ship of the line (1859)' and 'Duncan class ship of the line (1859)'". But I guess now that you wouldn't. If that's ok with you, mind if I make the move? Kind regards, Benea 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that "line-of-battle ship" and "liner" were the preferred term for steam line-of-battle ships. I have only ever seen "ship of the line" used for sailing vessels (Fincham uses the term.) What I have done is to put a rename proposal up.--Toddy1 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to 'Line of battle ship'. Perhaps we could get some opinions from WP:Ships? Benea 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No it is always line-of-battle ship. Not line of battle ship.--Toddy1 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, attempting to be brief, carpe diem and all that. But since you mention it, the convention is not to use dashes in the article titles, hence Arrogant class ship of the line, Canada class ship of the line and Ramillies class ship of the line. But we would refer to them in prose text as line-of-battle ship. --Benea 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing ships

Hi, good work with the article by the way. As to those ships, I was going off the wikipedia articles for those classes, which seem to use Lavery. Hence Minden and Invincible are listed as members of the Culloden class ship of the line and Montague as a member of the Royal Oak class ship of the line. I think it could be two sources listing the ships in a slightly different way, so I'm not really sure what the correct classification is. If you want to change that back, by all means go ahead. Perhaps Rif knows something about it. If we list them differently, we should probably alter the class articles accordingly though. Kind regards, Benea 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

Thanks for your message. I have added this article to my watchlist and added copious references to the talk page. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I was thinking it might be fun to get this up to FA. I've long been interested in Fisher and there's no shortage of material. User:Carom is interested in the Royal Navy and he could be roped in too. (We did the Battle of Arras (1917) together and are currently working on another project.} --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: the First Sea lord template - some info. Woody changed it because Fisher became Baron Fisher just before he left the Admiralty first time round. (November 1909). See here for the rationale. I'm not fussed either way. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Fisher's elevation to the House of Lords was a retirement present.--Toddy1 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, which he received a couple of months before he left office. (Anyway, as I said, I'm not fussed either way.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

This is my first post to you, and I really hope I am not bothering you bad. I am here to make a request. Can you, please, take a look at the Bangladesh Liberation War article. I have tried and improved it so some extent, but a lot more is needed. Can you give me some directions? I promise to work on them as much possible. One thing I should mention is that the article is currently heavily overlapping with with the interconnected articles linked as "see also" or "main article" on that page. If you respond to this, please, do so either on the talk page of the article or my talk page. My plan is to work on your feedback first, and then request a copyeditor to collaborate, and only then take it to peer review. Given the scope of the article and availability of material, this ought to become FA with a little help. And, oh, it has been submitted for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladesh Liberation War/archive1, too. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Graph

Looks good to me, and I think they make good additions to those pages. I think they're just right as they are, in a relevent bit of the text, and so a reader can click on them to get a better look at what it shows. Quite a striking difference when the iron clads start coming into service, but I suppose that's what you would expect. All in all, in my opinion, a nice encyclopedic addition. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Benea 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a great graphic, I'm not sure it's in the right place in the Battleship article quite yet. The Land 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ships-of-the-line

Hmm, that can be a tricky one. My suggestion would be to create the links for the Royal Navy ship names, together with the date they were captured, i.e. HMS Implacable (1805) was the French ship Duguay-Trouin. The exception would be if an article on the ship under its previous name already existed, i.e. French ship Scipion, which became HMS Scipion. The basic guide is to use the name under which it had the most notable career. If this is clear cut, you can create the article under that name, with a redirect from the other name, whether its French ship such-and-such, or HMS so-and-so. If it's a bit more ambiguous, I'd suggest using the RN name, and we can later decide whether to rename it, or create a seperate article for her career with the other navy.

As to the list, my preference would be "(2) Show those ships started as sailing ships", as then we get a good overview of that transition period, and it illustrates the period and rate of conversions. We can then have a note alongside them, such as "converted to screw propulsion, 18??" Just my opinions these, but I hope it helps. Let me know if I can help out anymore. Kind regards, Benea 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one of those things I suppose, to do it by the date the ship came into the possession of the country the article name is at. So for ships built for the Navy it would be the year of launch, for those captured, the year of capture. If we were to write an article for the ship's French career, it would be French Ship Duguay-Trouin (1795) but for her Royal Navy career, it's at HMS Implacable (1805), because that was when she became HMS Implacable, as opposed to Duguay-Trouin. If we named it otherwise, we'd be implying through the title that she was HMS Implacable since 1795. So we do it this way to show when she bore this name, and have part of the article to talk about an earlier career when she went by another name. Hope that makes some sort of sense, Benea 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

The Epic Barnstar
Can't help awarding you one of these for your wonderful contribution in developing the article on Bangladesh Liberation War. Thanks, I'll try to adress all the issues you raised as much as I can. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Two more things - (1) I have shifted the review to the peer review page, and I hope you don't mind; and (2) you suggested some cites from Indian or Pakistani sources, but I don't know anyone who I can ask for help to that end, and therefore it'd be a great help you suggested an editor who I can turn to. Cheers.

[edit] Trophy Cabinet

Perhaps you need a user page to store your barnsters and awards Mike Young 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) If you think one is needed, pls create it.--Toddy1 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warship template

Hi - I left a response over on my talk page. Cheers,Plasma east 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied there as well. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy

You can access it through the show feature on the MILHIST banner on the talk page. Here is the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy, it has now been archived. Hope this helps. By the way, on reflection i think you edits to the FSL template are correct, i am just not sure that all the other names currently follow that procedure. Woodym555 11:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warrior (1832)

A couple quick comments. Thanks for your edits on the article. :) I was unaware of the distinction, which brings me to another point, just so I am sure I understand this correctly, a boat operates on mostly inland waters and a ship operates at sea, is that about right? Also, is the title okay, or does the title need to include its a steamboat, that seemed a bit much for a title to me but would be happy to submit to prevailing convention on this. IvoShandor 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is funny is that as soon as I saw your comment at WP:SHIPS I went to change the article, got there it still read "ship", clicked edit, and it read "vessel" and just second from an edit conflict we were. :) IvoShandor 10:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. IvoShandor 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, your pictures of Dnipropetrovsk are very interesting, I liked them, thanks for having them posted. IvoShandor 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

This has been restructured to remove a lot of the repeated info. Hope you like the result. Mike Young 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Sayeed

See Talk:Jonathan Sayeed#Article_needs_cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest responses: I have replied there, and also at Talk:Chris Pond. I think that the Sayeed article is coming on nicely, and should soon be a good article candidate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the Sayeed article.

  • I merely want to produce a good biography of the man. This means that I want to reproduce the facts of his life, and to give verifiable sources for them.
  • You seem overly concerned about how facts fit in with the POV of the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. If facts about his expenses do not fit in with this POV, you deem them irrelevant.

I think that for the time being the best thing for me to do is to stand back, and make no further alternations or comments on the article for a few weeks. Maybe in mid-November it will be possible to see a way forward.

I do not want to produce a work of propaganda condemning the man. The life of an MP is very different from that of normal working people. With respect of some of the facts of their lives it is necessary to show context in order for readers to be able to understand the facts.--Toddy1 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Toddy, I have spent a long chunks of my life working in and around the Palace of Westminster with MPs of all parties, and I entirely agree about how their lives are different. I find that a lot of headlines about MPs' expenses levels are highly misleading, implying that money was reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when in fact most of it never went anywhere near the MP's hands, being used instead to pay staff wages and office costs. But that's largely a function of how parliament has chosen to misleadingly present all these items as "expenses" rather than as establishment costs. I think that most office workers would be outraged if they were to find that the cost of the PC on their desk, the rent for their room, the stamps on the mail they post and the even the salaries of their assistant were amalgamated and published as an overall "expenses" figure along with their travel expenses and entertainment bills, but that's what MPs have chosen to do themselves, without any parallel publication of how a 70-hour work week is the norm.
My concern is neither to uphold the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, nor to condemn them, but simply to uphold the principle that wikipedia strives for verifiability, using reliable sources, and per WP:NOR does not indulge in its own primary research. If there are reliable secondary sources commenting on the overall level of an MP's expenses then, by all means use them, and back up the references with figures listed in the primary sources. Similarly, if there is coverage in reliable secondary sources of the committee's findings, then use that, subject to balance -- but if, for example, there were several reports in the broadsheets denouncing the committee as pedantic and vindictive partisan twits who missed the point and unfairly condemned a good man, those reports should be used to bring those views into the article. Similarly, if there are reports criticising the committee for merely having recommended suspended an MP rather than flogging or guillotining him, use those ones to introduce that perspective.
The point in all of this is that wikipedia doesn't reach judgements on a person, it records those made by others. You are quite right to want to show the man's life in context, but that context should be derived from secondary sources, not primary ones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Pond

BTW, I was wondering if your reply above meant that you didn't want to respond to the questions I asked at Talk:Chris Pond. I would prefer to see the POV tag removed, and would like to discuss it, but if you don't want to discuss it, I think that I should just remove it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, please do not remove the POV tag until someone has corrected the problems.

BBC Bias. I accepted your arguments on the BBC bias issue yesterday, and did not refer to that with the POV tag. The degree of bias by the BBC when comparing these two cases shocked me. But there is not much I can do about it.

Labour Party of 2005 General Election POV. There were a number of edits that subtly introduced a distinct Labour Party of 2005 General Election POV.

  • "Pond was arrested by the police after an alleged attack on a young mother's house." 'Alleged' introduces an element of doubt into whether it really happened. But the Daily Mail article said that "Last night, Mr Pond admitted causing criminal damage". The Times article also says that "Mr Pond was then told that he was being offered a police caution for criminal damage, which meant admitting his guilt and paying £120 to repair the door... Mr Pond told the newspaper: “I decided to bring the nightmare to an end by accepting a caution. I have to accept I made a mistake. If leaving traces of glue on the door constitutes criminal damage, I have to take responsibility for it.”" The Daily Mail article stresses very strongly that the attack was violent and frightened the victim.
  • You have deleted the statement that "the Attorney General. Lord Goldsmith was a Ministerial colleague". This is pertinent to the issue of why he got off with a caution, and comes from the sources.
  • Chronologically, Mr Pond's violent attack on the house took place before the election. Yet you have moved it to a later position in the article. This suggests that the incident was not pertinent to the election. Evidence from other elections (e.g. the Martin Bell vs Neil Hamilton election) suggests that if apparently unbiased media portray one candidate as a nasty person, it helps his/her opponent.

Apart from these three matters, I have no quarrel with your copy edits on Mr Pond.--Toddy1 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to Talk:Chris Pond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag icons in infoboxes

Hello, Toddy1. A discussion on this topic has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flag_icons. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Dormskirk 16:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note

please stop making statements regarding what you believe i think. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you did not think it was pertinent, why did you make an edit inserting it?--Toddy1 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
please feel free to provide diffs and ask about them; but please don't feel free to make estimations and declarations of what you assume i think or feel.
cheers. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made a correction--Toddy1 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blind revert

I noticed that you restored an elementary factual error to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". I know it's hard to keep up with these controversial edit-warred-over articles, but please try to avoid this type of thing. "Operation Defensive Wall" was a 2002 series of incursions and raids into Palestinian towns and had nothing to do with a literal wall. <eleland/talkedits> 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know. The comments by the deleting person suggested that that it was a politically derived deletion.--Toddy1 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Japanese alliance

Hey there! Thanks for taking a look at the article. I should have no problem adding page-referenced citations for any statements that need it. In my previous wikipedia work I think I've tended to over-cite, so I could use some feedback on what needs citing and what doesn't. Could you let me know which kind of statements you think I ought to add a citation to? Also, could you leave a message on the talk page about your problems with the neutrality of the final section? I don't have an impassioned bias when it comes to Japanese history, so if you let me know where I went wrong I would probably be happy to follow your advice. Rupa zero (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but I was away for Christmas. Please you could show me a page that you consider overciting. Wikipedia has good tools for quoting large numbers of references to the same source, so it is not normally a problem.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadnought again

Merry Christmas! I've had another bash at working the dates and the theories into a narrative at User:The Land/Dreadnought. Your comments would be warmly welcomed! The Land (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you got there before I posted here! Please don't get the impression that I'm trying to erase your work on the article - very much the contrary, you have added a depth of knowledge which I'm not able to. I am essentially trying to improve the article so that it reads more easily and so that the motivation for the change to dreadnought-style armament is more readily understandable. Regards, The Land (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The story as I see it is as follows - though putting it in with citations is hard and long work, especially as people keep editing it.

  • With main armament, people tried adding intermediate calibre weapons (9.2", 10", and shorter barrel 12"), these seemed good idea at the time because of the advantage of rapidity of fire, but once they were in service they turned out to be a mistake. They complicated logistics by adding another type of gun/ammunition. With the local fire control they were designed for, the difficulty in telling whose shot was whose was exactly the same as with a homogenous main armament; but with centralised fire control (such as Scott's director) the difficulty two types of main armament was a big problem. However what killed the intermediate calibre main armament was the need for armour penetration at longer ranges caused by the increased range of torpedoes.
  • Most 12" gun dreadnoughts had lots of 12" turrets. These were there to give better arcs of fire, or to increase the broadside weight. However the drive to increase the number of turrets was countered by adopting either turrets with more than 2 guns, or heavier calibre guns. BY the time the Queen Elizabeths were designed, the arrangement of main armament turrets was the same as the predreadnoughts, except the guns were 15" instead of 12", and the development of superimposed turrets led to pairs of turrets. (Note that British sighting hoods did not allow the B turret to fire directly forward if the A turret was manned. The sighting hoods were modified post-WWI to allow this.)
  • Ideas and equipment for centralised fire control had been under development since about 1890. However until the various components were all there, they were not much use under conditions of fleet battle. Hence in 1904-05, ignoring centralised fire control was the right thing to do, whereas in 1914-18 centralised fire control was very important (indeed the Russians used centralised fire control to have a director on one ship control fire by 3 ships as if they were all part of the same ship). The dreadnought concept was not intitially intended for centralised fire control; indeed older British dreadnoughts had masts in particularly unfortunate positions for centralised fire control.
  • The intermediate calibre ships and early British/US dreadnoughts sacrificed the (approximately) 6" secondary armament so they could have the increased main armament for a limited increase in the size/cost of the ship, and the crew size/running costs. This turned out to be a big mistake; one the Germans did not make. By the time of Queen Elizabeths, a full 6" secondary armament had been restored. Eventually (though this happened post-war) the secondary armament got its centralised fire control (directors).
  • Early dreadnoughts had the same armour distribution as had been developed for the predreadnoughts. In the US, the opportunity was taken to correct the many short-cuts taken with protection with US predreadnoughts. With British dreadnoughts, the need to economy meant that the British took more shortcuts with armour with early dreadnoughts than with ships like Lord Nelson. At full load the armour belt at the waterline on Dreadnought was 4" - very inferior to Lord Nelson. (Incidentally the much-criticised HMS Agincourt was actually rather good in this respect.)
  • The US innovated with all-or-nothing armour with their 14" gun dreadnoughts - this concept had previously been used in 1880s central-citadel ships such as the Italian Duilio, British Inflexible, and the German Sachsen.
  • As ranges increased, deck armour and the horizontal armour of turrets became more important.
  • The introduction of turbines was a big success.
  • The introduction of the intermediate ships and the dreadnoughts led to another period of very rapid size growth. One reason this was accepted was that the slump in the non-defence orders for shipbuilding industry meant that the cost per ton was lower than would otherwise have been the case. The other reason was that admirals started to claim that earlier battleships no longer counted and used this to obtain additional funds - which Britain could ill afford (Pugh did a good critique of this)
  • The increase in size and therefore initial and running costs made a big decrease in battleship numbers inevitable for nations where the rate of GDP increase was less than the rate of increase in battleship cost (see Pugh). The arms race before WWI meant that this reality was postposed. Once WWI was over there was a big scrapping - this was inevitable, even if the war and the later arms treaties had not happened. Interestingly, the rate of grown of the pre-WWI German economy meant that the German economy could have sustained the cost growth. This is probably why the Germans did not go for the "buy new, scrap early" procurement strategy followed by Fisher. Because there was still a need for numbers, post WWI, cruisers ended up taking on many roles previously filled by battleships.

The dreadnought idea was also applied to armoured cruisers, producing the 'battlecruiser'.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very helpful to see such a summary so that I can see the direction you want to take things in. It is basically the same as where I want to take it (the incremental nature of wiki-editing might not help communicate that). Let me see what I can make of my sandbox version; I tend to work by putting down prose first and then sourcing it later. Regards, The Land (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I've got there with the origins section in the sandbox at User:The Land/Dreadnought- I've added a bit more detail (all well-sourced) and I think the structure helps make the rationale for the move from all-big-gun mixed-caliber to single-calibre clearer. Do you have any objection to me putting that into the article? Regards, The Land (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made some factual corrections.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Brownfield architecture

An editor has nominated Brownfield architecture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownfield architecture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

I've had a look over, and assigned it a rating of B class. As always, this may be challenged or overturned by another editor, but I think that unlikely. There might be one or two little quibbles over points 1 (It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited) and 2 (It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies) but I think certainly not enough to justify downgrading it.

A few suggestions if you wanted to move the list further up the assessment scale:

  • 1) A longer lead and introduction, discussing what the background of the battle was, the main points about how it was fought, and the outcome.
  • 2) A small section on the historiography might be a useful addition.
  • 3) Summarising the results of the tables to follow - brief discussion of total numbers present, those that became casualties, etc. Also on disposition of ships, guns and other potentially relevant factors to the battle and its outcome.
  • 4) A picture, just to illustrate the battle or a particular moment, to go with the lead.
  • 5) A full reference section, with perhaps some other works mentioned. Separate sections for external links, notes and literature as applicable.

A similar article, currently rated as a Featured list is the Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, and shows some of these points in action, if you wanted a model. As to formatting issues, that's not my particular bailiwick but someone from the League of Copyeditors should be able to offer a few tips. Hope this is all of help. It is a thorough and complete list and with a little work should have no trouble making featured list. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships

My profound apologies to all concerned. This convention is so alien to all other Wikipedia naming conventions that it never occurred to me that it was correct. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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) 08:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

Hello -- Your recent edit to Japanese battleship Asahi resulted in a massive number of red date links. The date format "1912-05-28" in double brackets (1912-05-28 (for example) yields the exact same result as "May 28, 1912" in double brackets (May 28, 1912), so there was no need for most of the changes as they were made. As I am sure you are aware, the Wikipedia format does not recognize the whole date in double brackets, May 28, 1912, which is why the dates are now all disrupted in the artcle. --MChew (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that most English people write dates 15 May 1912, not 1912-05-28. As for the concept of dates being 'disrupted', I do not understand what you mean.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some English people prefer 15 May 1912; others prefer May 15, 1912; and even others prefer 1912 May 15. You can use the normal Wikimedia date formatting hooks (see WP:MOSDATE), and it will display the dates correctly. What you did by adding the pipe links like [[1897-08-01|01 Aug 1897]] forces a single format on everyone, and is not any better than the original. The MOS says that in a list context, dates like 1912-05-15 is acceptable, but in prose, a readable format needs to be used. When the reader is logged into an account, there is no difference; but, for unregistered users, they'll see whatever is in the brackets. Anyway, I've brought one of your redirects to the attention of WP:RFD to see if they are still necessary, now that the date formatting issues are fixed. Neier (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists for the benefit of normal people. Normal people when they look at a wikipedia page that says 1900-02-05 see 1900-02-05. They do not see 5 February 1900. Wikipedia should be written for the benefit of people who speak English.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dnipropetrovsk

Hey, nice job on expanding the history section of Dnipropetrovsk! I tried to clean it up a long time ago, but it will be a major undertaking.. I succeeded with Donetsk, see the way it was before I came to it [1].. Maybe we'll be able to get it to Good article status later on.. Cheers, —dima/talk/ 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battleship citations

I agree that the battleship article is a fair bit weaker than, say, the parts of dreadnought you and I have worked on. I can currently see a few dozen half-truths and inaccuracies in it, so I imagine you can see a few hundred ;-) However it's still a well-cited article, given the breadth of the subject, and I don't think tagging it generally with a citations tag is going to help. Realistically, there are a group of about 5 or 6 Wikipedians, including both you and I, who can improve that article from where it stands. I intend to return to 'battleship' after dreadnought and treaty battleship are finally featured. In the meantime, raising the issues with the article on the talk page is probably the most productive thing to do. Best regards, The Land (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing that astonishes me is that there are a huge number of people who have seemingly infinite time to to reform bits of articles to use some pet template they have an obsession about, and so few who can be bothered to generate the content of articles with proper citations. I looked at one infobox conversion last weekend for French battleship Dévastation (1879) and was appalled by what was there - I have since fixed the infobox - it was not hard, just time consuming.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why so many infoboxes are being converted but I assume there is a good reason for it somewhere. There are not many people who have the resources to supply detailed references or work up great articles in each specialised field! Different people have different roles to play... The Land (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I can't find the source for my original statement about the reloading time for Duilio, but Brown (who is pretty reliable) gives an even longer one. I would not be terribly surprised: the turrets had to be moved into loading position, the guns declined, the barrel swept (I assume) and then a new shell loaded - all involving massive pieces of metalwork and either worked by hand or by steam, which I gather waas not the most reliable. Regards, The Land (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was surprised by your figure was that the Italian Navy in its rules for maneouvres quoted them with a rate of 1 round every 15 minutes. The figure you gave seems much too fast.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you added a substantial number of "fact" tags to the Battleship article. I also noticed the article has a substantial number of general references. I would like to better understand your criteria for adding a fact tag. Is it your position that all the statements you tagged are probably untrue, and probably could not be found in the general references? Did you attempt to find any of the statements in any of the references before tagging them? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The position is that the statements need citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware that general references are acceptable, and there is no requirement for each and every statement to have an inline reference? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
By placing the fact tags I have successfully encouraged people to put in references - thus greatly reducing the number of fact tags. I placed them sparingly, only where citations were absolutely necessary. Remember it is supposed to be a featured article, not a start class article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Image Deletion

Your welcome =D « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Battleships of France

Good work! Very thorough and just the kind of treatment those list articles need. I can see only two ways of improving it. First when talking about 'lozenge' or 'pre-dreadnought' layout there should be something to explain to the reader what that means - whether it's a wikilink, reference or parenthesis. Secondly, some of the references probably need page references. I wouldn't say this is necessary for the bulk of them - if you are referencing to (say) Conway's where every ship or class has an article and those articles are all comprehensively indexed, there is no need for a page number. However you might think about whether this applies to every statement, or every source, you have referenced. Thanks a lot for your work! The Land (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replied...

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Sorry! the_ed17 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSDAB

Hi Toddy

Thought I'd just drop you a quick pointer to WP:MOSDAB after I undid your good faith edits to Bradford (disambiguation). Per WP:MOSDAB, links to disambiguated articles should not be piped, and other words should not be linked. The only exception is if the disambiguated term is a redlink, when one other term may be linked.

Hope this bit of disambiguation pedantry helps :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I do not mind - all I objected to was a disambiguation page for a Bradford, with a line entitled 'Brad'... I neither know nor care about the extremely-obscure musician in question. Ultimately what you did made it better.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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) 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milliknots

Well I'm amazed ... and in the nineteenth century.

As for "kts", according to the MoS, abbreviations/symbols should not be pluralised. That would leave us with "kt" but since this is the metric symbol for kilotonne the MoS advises using "kn" and {{convert}} is following suit. If "kn" is garbage, I'll stop adding abbr=on to conversions from knots using {{convert}} in the ship infoboxes I come across. Note, though, that the template currently treats kn and knot as equivalent.

Anyhow, how did they manage such precision? Plus, I've just had a thought, {{convert}} takes the knot to be 1.852 km/h exactly but were these measurements done with the old British knot of 6,080 ft/h? If so, the template will be doing the wrong conversion ... which probably won't matter since we're rounding the conversion to the nearest kilometre per hour but ... JIMp talk·cont 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


They measured the time the ship took to travel a distance - usually a mile. One of the reasons for using the average of several readings was so that they could measure it going each way - thus getting rid of the effect of currents.

Of course the measurements used the knot of 6080 ft.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)