User talk:Gsl

Dear GSL, thanks for your additions to John Monash, they are certainly an improvement. Perhaps you could find a better photo? Regards Adam 03:04, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure the AWM couldn't care less if we use one of their photos. I will find one. Adam 12:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for spotting British 1st Airborne Division. I'd found red links to 1st Airborne Division and assumed it didn't exist. I'll fix it up. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Strickly speaking, those are battleboxes not taxoboxes. :) The 'taxo' stands for taxonomy which is dealt with in WikiProject Tree of Life. Nice work BTW. --mav 05:55, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the origin. I've just been using the template from Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Battles. I just thought it was some sort of standard Wikipedia jargon. Thanks for the tip. Geoff 06:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NP. I created the template you are using and I'm glad to see it being used. --mav

---

Do you mind if I change the colors used on the "other British Army" tables so that it is not identical to the battle tables? It could be another shade of gray, if you like, or something more colorful. (AFAIK, there's no wikiproject involved here, so I'm just asking you directly -- tell me if there are others I should check with first). Tuf-Kat 03:43, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Did I double-stub HMS Malaya? If so, sorry.

Paul, in Saudi

---

I've created a MediaWiki construction for the Formidable class. However, I've run into a conflict. The Wikipedia article claims that the Formidable class had eight members. However, other sources that I can find online agree that it had only three members, Formidable, Irresistible and Implacable. I've created the Mediawiki object with only three objects.David Newton 04:22, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The rest were probably a sub-class, slightly modified to the Formidable design. So I think it would be ok if it was just stated on the page that the other ships were modified Formidables. They were probably something like the batch 3 Type 42s. The sub-class appears to simply have had a slightly bigger draught, smaller displacement and less armour on the decks, but that's really it. In every other way they were identical. SoLando 16:35, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[1]

Formidable-class - 3 ships Size: 15,800 tons deep load, 431ft 9in oa x 75ft x 25ft 11in Propulsion: 2 shaft Triple Expansion, 15,500 ihp, 18kts Armour: 9in belt, 12in barbettes, 10in gun houses, 3-1in decks Armament: 4 x 12in 40 cal BL (2 x 2), 12 x 6in QF (12 x 1), 16 x 12pounder QF (16 x 1), 6 x 3pounder (6 x 1), 4 x 18in TT

London-class - 5 ships Size: 15,700 tons deep load, 431ft 9in oa x 75ft x 26ft Propulsion: 2 shaft Triple Expansion, 15,000 ihp, 18kts Armour: 9in belt, 12in barbettes, 10in gun houses, 2.5-1in decks Armament: 4 x 12in 40 cal BL (2 x 2), 12 x 6in QF (12 x 1), 16 x 12pounder QF (16 x 1), 6 x 3pounder (6 x 1), 4 x 18in TT

---

Geoff, are you aware that the AWM has put PDF copies of the WWI official histories online in PDF form? David Newton 14:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sent an email to the AWM asking whether they were planning on doing the WWII histories as well. They are, but there is no firm date on when that will happen.

Another thing that you may be interested in is that the New Zealand WWII histories are being put online. They are at the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre. Finally, I help to run a website called HyperWar that is putting American WWII texts online as well as British WWII texts. I'm responsible for the British section, where there are two complete volumes, two more in the works, a small amount of PRO primary sources, and a number of despatches from the London Gazette. David Newton 21:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I view the AWM's claim of copyright on those WWI histories as somewhat suspect to say the least. They are straight scans that have been converted into PDFs. That certainly wouldn't qualify for copyright protection in and of itself under US law, and I don't believe it would under UK law either. Since Australian law is most similar to UK law, the 1968 Copyright Act talks about an original literary work in the same sort of way as the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988, I am inclined to think that a mechanical copy, which is what a scanned PDF is if no modification has been made to that PDF such as adding in hyperlins, would not qualify for extra copyright protection. In that case the term of protection for the books, except ANZAC to Amiens which is clearly life+50, should be the standard Crown copyright period of 50 years from publication. That means that all of those works are out of copyright since the last revisions were made to the in the 1940s. David Newton 00:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)