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 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, and 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 hyperlinks, 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)

---

Thanks for your fix to the footer on the F-100 Super Sabre - I've fixed the samples on the WikiProject Aircraft page accordingly. Just a small request - when adding a new aircraft type, could you please check to see that it makes its way onto the list of aircraft? Cheers, --Rlandmann 10:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Will do. Geoff 12:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I was really excited when you put the years in aviation in place - so it was a pleasure to help out with the linking. At the moment, the scope of WikiProject Aircraft is focused on heavier-than-air aviation since 1903 - so I think that we should extend the individual years back that far. I think that date is sufficiently well-embedded in the popular consciousness that people will be expecting it anyway... and I'm sure that we will be able to flesh out each year from then until 1910 - it was a pretty crazy and intense time for flying machines.

An absolute gold mine for pioneering-age stuff is this site at Monash. Through the 19th Century, there could be enough material eventually for decade pages from Cayley onwards. For the moment, however, I think 19th century in aviation is probably sufficient.

BTW - care to add yourself as a participant of the WikiProject? You've become one of the most prolific contributors anyway :) --Rlandmann 23:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean - I started writing about planes as a break from the Soviet space programme... and I'm still here! :) --Rlandmann 00:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also really like the change to linking years in aircraft articles to "years in aviation" now... will implement that change in my contributions from here on in. Maybe you could add this suggestion on the WikiProject page somewhere? --Rlandmann 09:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi again - I'm trying to get the ball rolling on a standard data box for aero engines - if you'd like to make any suggestions, take a look here. --Rlandmann 01:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Geoff, as suggested I have replaced the Fairey Battle 3-view with a photo. Is this really the way to send messages (by editing the User talk page?) Keith Edkins 09:16, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Would appreciate your input on the dispute here --Rlandmann 22:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

copyvios

Regarding T-6 Texan: when you encounter a copyright violation, please insert the copyvio message and do not edit the article. We are not allowed to retain copyright violations in page history and currently have no good way to remove them. In the future, please use a /temp directory and reference it in the talk page. - Tεxτurε 19:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Geoff. Sure looks like two articles to me! The correct title if there has only been one ship of that name is HMS Glorious. A disambiguating suffix *such as "(77)" or "(aircraft carrier)" or "(1916)" should only be added when there are two or more ships of the same name. I only know of one, but surely there were others? It seems such an obvious patriotic sort of ship name. It's possible to merge the histories with a clever combination of deletions, page moves and restores, but I forget the details. I doubt that it matters though, as you can simply merge by hand and say "Merged with (pagename)" in the edit summary, so as to provide a back-link to the other history. Merge away! (Just be sure not to repeat the egregrious description of her initial form as a "cruiser"!) Best -- Tannin

According to Colledge there has only ever been one Glorious. However, I would take the opposite tack from Tannin on naming. Using a disambig suffix means that an article will always be distinct, and we won't have to be alter things ever in the future if another Glorious is commissioned. Still it's done. David Newton 01:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

On the aircraft table point, the only way I can seem to find to get the system to cooperate and to place the table to the left of the main aircraft table without overlapping is to alter the width of the squadron table to less than 100%. 67% is the largest that it will go without overlap. David Newton 01:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the heads up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles. I didn't know that WikiProjects existed Philip Baird Shearer 06:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Please have a look at what I have written on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wars I am intrested in what you think.Philip Baird Shearer 05:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Please drop me a Hello email (E-mail user), I would like to talk through what you wrote on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wars, but I don't want to clutter up that page.

---

Thanks for the link for List of Roman Military Terms...I thought it looked a bit suspicious. Adam Bishop 03:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

hi Gsl,
a long time ago, on feb 12, you posted a message on my talk page saying no offence meant. Thx for saying, no offence taken, i ddidnt feel insulted or anything in anyway. My absence / sparse visiting en: is entirely unrelated. TeunSpaans 08:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Australian divisions in WW1

Hi Geoff. I must admit I'm in two minds about the five 1st AIF divisions' pages. I can see arguments in favour of either course of action, i.e. including post-WW1 histories on the existing pages or; creating separate pages for the CMF units (which assumed the divisional names in or after 1921).

On one hand, it seems to be a convention of military history to use the same page for historically disparate units which happen to share the same recycled names (the military not being very imaginative in this respect :-). And the CMF, initially at least, even included in the post-1921 divisions many of the same battalion numbers, often matching the original states of the 1st AIF battalions (which is why we refer to the "second 14th battalion" etc in the 2nd AIF, i.e. to avoid confusion with the CMF battalions). So there was probably some continuity between the AIF and CMF divisions in terms of WW1 veterans who joined the CMF.

Also, given the ban on CMF units serving "overseas", there generally isn't a lot to say about the post-1921 units, except in the few cases where the body of a CMF division served in New Guinea (or nearby) in 1942-45. Generally CMF units are better known at the battalion/brigade level (e.g. the heroic 39th (Militia) Bn, which held the line on the Kokoda Track). I think if the tenuous continuity/recycling of names, post-WW1, is pointed out, the WW2 histories can be included.

On the other hand, I can also see the logic in creating "Australian 1st Division (WW1)" and "Australian 1st Division (CMF)" pages, as long as the existence of the later/previous 1st Div is pointed out at the top of each page. What do you think? Regards Grant65 (Talk) 06:47, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed. I will rewrite the old pages as disambiguation pages when I get a chance. Grant65 (Talk) 05:36, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the manual line breaks. Grant65 (Talk) 03:34, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Clan Map

Congratulations on the Clan Map, Geoff - excellent work, which enhances the article. I guess I'll have to write something about the Lowland Families now.... Agendum 00:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, just a few suggestions, Geoff: I've compared it with other clan maps available online, especially that at scottishradiance.com and the electricscotland version (long download) - firstly, I think you've done exactly the right thing by limiting the map to the strict highland geographical area, rather than incorporating the clans and families of Lowland Scotland as well. I'm going to have to write an article about the Lowland - not sure whether we can call then Clans, as these are (by definition) Highland family groupings - I prefer to say Lowland Families, although I'll gladly listen to other views.

Two main points: other maps seem to have the clan names in the singular, ie, 'MacLeod' rather than 'MacLeods'; and the spelling of 'Fraser' is usually with an 's', as I understand it, not a 'z'. But, I repeat, this is excellent work, so don't feel these criticisms are major.

I'd be interested to know what application you use for drawing these - I've had a look at some of your other battle maps. I've toyed with a few mapping projects myself (using Illustrator - but not very well), but have never had the courage to put them online yet!

Bruce, aka Agendum 23:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aboukir Bay

Your map for Battle of the Nile is very nice. Thank you. Some comments:

• HMS Culloden and the French ships Généreux and Timoléon are missing.
• The French frigates Artémise, Diane and Justice are also missing, though they were much less important than the ships of the line, so perhaps not worth adding.
• You've tilted the map so that north isn't at the top, so you need to add an arrow pointing north.
• The shoals extended further north than you've indicated (from your map it's not clear how Culloden managed to run aground).

See [2] for a map showing some of these missing features.

Sorry to be so picky! I appreciate your work in preparing these maps. Gdr 11:21, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

No worries. I'll see what I can do. Geoff/Gsl 00:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)