User talk:Bellhalla

You can click here to leave me a new message.

Talkback

Hello, Bellhalla. You have new messages at Redmarkviolinist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{tb}}

Hello, Bellhalla. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{tb}}

Hello, Bellhalla. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

wp:GTC

you should check this page. you may or may not have thought about it before. Nergaal (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I knew that was a proposal a while back but did not know that it had ever been implemented. I'll take a longer look at it and, I suspect, have an entry or two at some point. Thanks for the heads up on that. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From a quick-check you have at least 3 topics eligible to become good topics. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and submit the topics myself? Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which ones you mean, but go for it if you want to. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/U-1 class submarine
• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/U-3 class submarine
• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/U-5 class submarines
• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/USS Princess Matoika

If this is to be expected for GTC, I withdraw my support for these nominations. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving bureaucracy aside, is there anything wrong with {{Austro-Hungarian U-boats}}? Or better said, why do you think it should not be used for the U-x pages? Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, no. All the links point to where they are supposed to.

What I don't understand is the need to try and combine all of the templates into one ungainly and unsightly (no offense intended) template. The individual class templates—in addition to being the consensus way to handle ship class navboxes—are much cleaner and simpler, and connect related submarines to each other. If someone wants to visit the sub articles following the Fibonacci sequence or to see only odd numbered subs or whatever else, they can follow the link to List of Austro-Hungarian U-boats that appears at the bottom of each class template.

To me, combining them makes as much sense as combining, say {{Jupiter}} and {{Saturn}}, because someone might possibly want to get from the article on the Jovian moon of Io to the Saturnian moon of Tethys. Well, yeah, maybe someone might, but that doesn't mean we need to have a link to every possible article that someone might want to visit next from a navbox at the bottom of an article.

I withdrew support for the nominations because if a consensus-style template is going to cause so much wikidrama, GTC is not a process I care to subject myself to. There's already enough drama in my own life without artificially adding more. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree to your points, but for example the Jupiter/Saturn comparison is not 100% accurate. The problem here wasn't so much the connection between articles, but rather the usefulness of such a small template. For example the main Jupiter and Saturn templates include each over 10 links, while in this case, each of the templates has 3/4 links. Also, since all these articles are historical, I am not 100% sure why you think that jumping from U-1 to say U-5 is such an unlikely possibility. Anyways, if anything, I think that wp articles suffer from way to little templates rather than from too much navigation templating: asides from the very visited articles, most of the others rarely have any nav templates at all. I for example was not aware of any classes past U-43 since the main article is not complete. While for conesseurs like you the presence of such a template might seem rather not particularly revealing/gainly, for somebod outside the field, I believe it does an ok job of introducing the scope of the A-H U-boats. Ah, and one more thing: the template now has ~40 entries, and they can probably be rearranged/trimmed/etc in a better format. Nergaal (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually one more thing: check {{Solar System moons (compact)}}, which if I am not wrong, is placed on all the major moon articles. If you want a comparrison, then think of the major moons vs the rest to be similar to launched U-boats vs never finished ones. Nergaal (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand my points, whether you agree or not. I do understand your reasoning though I do not agree with it, and I'm not sure that I see anything that would convince me of the necessity of the template. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Hello!

Thank you very much for the time and feedback. Such a detailed feedback is truly appreciated. I will be sure to address each point in the time provided. Just two Points as a background information. 1. The images of the Ace Leaders were inherited from their own articles. 2. During the Peer Review, the reviewers were equally divided over Rank or unit names. Specifically weather to have German Name follwed by translation in parenthesis or Vice versa.

I will post all my detailed points on the Review page. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the time.

Perseus71 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi !

As you can see, I have completed some changes. But I am really sorry it looks like I am not going to be able to complete the Complying the GA Review Comments in the time limit. I will definitely finish by December 17th. Could you please extend the timeline till then ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not a problem. It's a long article and I know you have been working on it. Extending the hold 'til the 17th is fine by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have almost completed incorporating review comments. I am working on addressing your first comment for Review Criteria 2. That too is almost done. I'd appreciate if you could review my incorporation.

I am embarrassed but have no choice to request for a bit more time. My other life is making heavy demands on my time. :( Perseus71 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would through the 22nd be enough time? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have finally completed all the pending activities. There are three comments that are outstanding. I have provided my comments on the same. I have also removed the {inuse} tag as well. I'd appreciate if you could let me know your views on those three outstanding. Once again appreciate your time invested. Perseus71 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bellhalla,

I'd once again like to thank you for the time you invested in working with me and reviewing the article. I'd especially like to thank you for the patience you showed me with my time mismanagement. As to taking to Class A status, I know there's a proper process for the same. However could you let me know how much improvement does it need ? A lot or a reasonable amount ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles?

Hello Bellhalla! I noticed that you have written some excellent articles on ships and submarines. I just wanted to let you know that although these articles are generally shorter than most of the articles that are promoted to be featured articles, there is no size requirement for featured article status, and several very short articles have been featured in the past. I would encourage you to nominate some of your articles, as I think some of them might have a good chance of being promoted. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Right now, I have two articles under consideration at FAC, SS Dakotan and SS Washingtonian, and would be hesitant to add any more until one or the other of those is promoted (thinking positively). — Bellhalla (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of German submarine U-164

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on German submarine U-164, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because German submarine U-164 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting German submarine U-164, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bellhalla, looking at the history of the set index, you can easily find out who tagged the page for speedy deletion. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it was a sort of(?) usurped user account with a redirected talk page, so I wasn't sure if a message there would get to the right person. I figured if it was on a subpage of User:Cyde, that may be where Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx (usurped) got the idea… — Bellhalla (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

U-21, U-22, and U-23

I have reviewed these articles. Since they are so similar I just looked them all over at the same time, all passed. You don't seem to be one to display awards, but recognition is appropriate for 3 simultaneous GAs nonetheless. Good job!

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For knocking out 3 GAs simultaneously by writing SM U-21 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-22 (Austria-Hungary), and SM U-23 (Austria-Hungary). -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

-Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No need or consensus for mass changing of {{warship}} to {{ship}}

There was absolutely no need for the bot run to change {{warship}} to {{ship}}. Because {{warship}} is a redirect to {{ship}}, its invocation is the same as an an invocation of {{ship}}. Regardless of the template chosen, the presentation to the reader is the same, which puts these edits in the realm of the trivial and, thus, makes them unnecessary. Further, when the option of mass replacement of {{warship}} with {{ship}} was brought up here on the discussion page of WikiProject Ships there was no consensus for this sort of change. The case could actually be made that there was, in fact, more of a consensus that this should not be done than the other way. All that your bot run has accomplished, in my view, is a clogging of my watchlist with trivial edits that have no net benefit for the readers, the ones for whom we are building this encyclopedia. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The total amount of change was several articles. Someone else made the change before me. I merely finished the job. Would you like me to convert {{ship}} back to {{warship}}? I can do that. If not, what is the issue? -- Cat ^chi? 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for U-101 class submarine

On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U-101 class submarine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for U-107 class submarine

On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U-107 class submarine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

File vs Image

Looks like there are 3 holdouts from whatever was going on the other day with the most recent change: Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles. I can't see any reason why these are remaining "unassessed". --Brad (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that they're probably examples of the "this list may sometimes be slightly out of date" admonition that appears on category pages. Or at least I hope they are. If they aren't, I have no idea why they would be still appearing there. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering. They've been in there a few days now. --Brad (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Empire Ships

I've commented on the talk page of the template and suggested another way to split the template. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Havmanden class submarine (1911)

The article Havmanden class submarine (1911) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Havmanden class submarine (1911) for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bacliff, Texas

I have reverted your promotion of this article, as it does not even come close to meeting the Good Article criteria. There is too much information missing and much work to be done. Sections are also seriously out of order and the article needs a complete overhaul. It's probably C-class right now, but definitely not GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, but disagree with your assessment. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

on your new Featured Articles. Two at once! Kablammo (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown

It gives me great joy to award this Imperial Napoleonic triple crown to Bellhalla for exceptional mainspace contributions to 5 (in this case, 9) pages in the area of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you very much for your generous time and diligence on behalf of the project. You are a Napoleon among editors. Yours, Cirt (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, outstanding work! Especially on USS Orizaba (ID-1536) - well-written, great contribution to the topic on a historic issue that adds encyclopedic value, and this is certainly reflected in the support earned during its FAC, good work. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Indomito class destroyer

On 17 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indomito class destroyer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to you, sir, for another excellent article! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What shall we do with the drunken sailor

Hey Bell, do you have any comment on my speculation that Beramba is a mistaken transciption of The Omrah? Some of the information seems to match up quite well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It may well be, but whether or not it is, SS Omrah is notable. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. I didn't think of the naming convention starting with SS, what does that stand for anyway? I think a redirect from Omrah would be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

SS stands for steamship. It's possible that she was actually a Royal Mail Ship or RMS since the Orient Line shared the Australian mail contract, but I have no source on hand at present to indicate this. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had just created the SS Omrah article. I thought it was always there, and I just hadn't seen the article. Anyway, thanks for you interest and consideration of my wild theories, and also for creating the Omrah article. I see a pic was added too. She's looking good! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bell can you check this article out? There's some unformatted stuff from that website at the bottom. I don't know what it means. Also I left a question on the talk page. And I'm wondering we can move the existing RMS Andania to RMS Andania II per Cunard's naming conventions and there being 3 Andania ships. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you wanted me to check out, what with no link and all... ;) As to the Andania article, If it were to be moved, the naming conventions would suggest that RMS Andania become a set index page (similar to a disambiguation page) and the current article would be moved to RMS Andania (1922). — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So you wanted a link too? Jheesh! How about this one, per your and Mjroots instructions... RMS Andania (1913) On the Andania (a place in Greece I think) article page can we disambiguate to the disambiugation page for the ships? How would you go about that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the first article to RMS Andania (1922) and converted RMS Andania into a set index page. I also changed the link in the Cunard template on the 1922 ship page, but it will take while for the changes to filter through to all of the articles where it's transcluded. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I can't get Mel Gibson running around Galipoli out of my head since working on that article. Interesting that the ship had some intriguing history. There's more on the talk page, but I haven't had a chance to rewrite, and add it yet. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Empire Ships

What do you think about splitting the template by first letter of suffix, with ships being split by type in that template? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I've responed to your comments on my review. I would love to see the problems fixed and this article listed. Keep up the good work! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on three articles—SS Black Osprey, SS Mauna Loa, and SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary)—all promoted to A-Class in November and December 2008, you are hereby awarded the military history A-Class medal by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject. Kirill 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)