1381:"but as they had never designed any sort of modern capital ship (the design of the projected battleships of 1913 having been from foreign shipbuilders), the plans did not reflect any of the advances in warship design that had come about after the First World War, and in particular the armor protection was totally outmoded." Redundancies, I'm afraid. "designed a modern capital ship" ... "reflect advances in warship design since the ...". Semicolon, not "and" ... "... War; in particular, the armor ...".
2039:(maybe a decade or so for anniversaries and special occasions); however, the museum has given a date and specifically stated postcard, so I think we can reasonably take it to be the publishing year of the image unless it can be proven otherwise. This postcard just manages to scrape in under the URAA 1996 date (an anonymous 1925 Dutch work falls into Dutch PD from 1 Jan 1996 onwards) to qualify for US PD as well). Hope the OTRS clears quickly, so we can close the image review.
1571:: this is not likely by the Royal Netherlands Navy. Conway credits each picture, and some pictures are uncredited (whether they are PD-UK or unknown authorship escapes me, Conway has credited pictures to "MoD" and "author's collection"). Prime example, on page 8, there is a column of 3 pictures; the top two are individually credited, even though they are from the same source. The bottom image of the column is uncredited.
988:. I think that the artist modified this pic by flipping/cropping it, removing the aircraft and second mast and adding a second funnel; note the similar angle of the guns (front two flat, back one elevated). So three questions: A) as a derivative work, would this fall into a free category? B) is the picture not valuable if it's just a modification? C) Could a detailed line drawing like the one seen
955:"the size of the 280 mm (11 in) guns, used because Hitler did not want to put the British on guard, rendered them inferior to of British, French and American battleships as their guns were much smaller than the 14, 15 and 16 inch (36–38–41 cm) guns of those countries." Missing a word, and clarify what "them" refers to (vessel or guns).
1643:, is there a page on the Dutch military website that specifically states the images hosted are in public domain or free for use? I do not understand Dutch; hence I have to ask you (I presume you understand the language) to go through the Dutch site to locate the information needed to verify these images.
2038:
Well, the ship was commissioned in 1925, so a photo of it moored in Den Helder, the Dutch main naval base, in its first operational year (or before that) is not really unbelievable. For publishing, it is stated to be a postcard and these are generally printed almost immediately or a few years later
1933:
Stick to the Navy ones. The private photos are copyrighted for 70 years past the author's death, and the corporate images 70 years after first legal publishing. Note that
Maritiem displays images at the smallest size and you have to zoom in at higher levels for original sizes (too high a zoom and
1725:
I just got an email back from the navy stating that "All of the pictures on www.defensie.nl ( the official website of the Dutch
Ministry of Defence) may be used in the public domain, as long as the source is mentioned (bron: Ministerie van Defensie/source: Dutch Ministry of Defence)." Should I send
1025:
there's an image by home-grown (Knowledge (XXG)) talent; I have seen another editor (whose name escapes me now) who has done similar drawings. That may be an avenue worth exploring. (It my be difficult to walk the line between a derivative work and original research, but as the class design was
556:
Main armament yes, secondary no. No one knows exactly which version of the 120mm gun would have been used, and the numbers for the two I give would be wrong—the 1924 gun would have been updated and the "modern gun" was put into service in 1950 after incorporating improvements learned from WWII.
483:
However, even though these vessels would be superior to any 20 cm (8 in)-gunned 10,000 ton treaty cruiser, it was felt that too much would be sacrificed if a smaller ship like this was adopted: if the armor was kept the same as the battlecruiser, no armament could be fitted. With the protection
937:
The "Fair Use" claim for the lead image needs to be examined. While important to the article, it is a work of art, not a photograph of a no-longer-extant vessel. Consequently it likely is not irreplaceable; it is an artist's conception of what the vessel would look like, not a photograph. A
1472:
Excellent article which meets the FA criteria. The level of detail on this abortive project is remarkable and I found it to be a good read. My only suggestion is that the 'aircraft' fields in the infobox should probably be populated with whatever the final allocation of aircraft and operating
1814:. The ship or knowledge of its exact structure is not in existence; hence, creating it from one's guesses is an original thought that is not verified by reliable sources. Basing it off someone's idea would make it a derivative work. (A similar situation would be the Byzantine dromon in
2072:. Would you be able to check the license I put on it? I'm pretty sure that it's right, but not 100%. Also, I swear that I am done adding images now. :-) Thank you for all of your help in sorting through these issues; to say that it has been invaluable would be an understatement. Cheers, —
1596:
1588:
1377:
Spot the redundant word: "After a recommendation from Dutch admirals saying that the
Koninklijke Marine should be bolstered so any attacker would ..." (saying ... but you might consider also removing "should"—the sentence is precariously long, and this might help a
1092:
I agree we should wait for Stifle's opinion. (And
Colosseum was the artist I was thinking of.) The absence of the image should not affect this FAC. I honestly don't know the answer as to whether it can be kept. I doubt it, but claim no specific expertise.
1915:(@ site) - DUDE. That is the gold mine I was hoping would turn up somewhere. Thanks a lot! I'll be hunting through that for images; are all of them PD becuase they have been donated to the museums? For now, I'll try to keep to the official Navy ones... —
1887:
1998:
Oh, and about
Maritiem's small windows? Forget about it... I just discovered that you can simply zoom in and right-click to save the zoomed image. It will be, on default, saved as a *.ashx file; just rename the file extension to *.jpg.
985:
1657:
I actually don't; Google
Translate is a beautiful tool. :) Thank you for the link, though...I did assume that they would be PD without actually checking. I don't see anything, but I will email them and wait for a response. With thanks,
979:
Hmm. Never thought of it like that before (I just thought that it would be irreplaceable and therefore justified fair-use); thanks for asking about this. I don't know if it will help, but I found an extremely similar image of
95:
A class of Dutch battlecruisers that were intended to be the backbone of the naval defense of the East Indies. The problem was that the
Netherlands were invaded by Germany just as the design was finally finalized...
1802:: in response to the points brought up earlier in this FAC, no, we do not use a work of unknown origin for fair use. Do not use this image if it was not published in a reliable source. As for the line drawing in
958:"Although they discussed the issues that had with propulsion, the Dutch came away from Italy entirely uninspired by their efforts." I suspect "they" and "them" refer to different parties; needs clarification.
456:
What is the fundamental difference between a battlecruiser and an
Armoured Cruiser? (I know you and I know this, but the average reader won't, and is likely too lazy to draw up both pages and compare them).
1826:
indicate that they were using one of the older designs and so their drawing may not reflect the final design which I give stats for (although I'm sure that it is close and I will use it if I can't scan!).
460:
I'm questioning my own writing here...I know that Noot called the alternate design one "of the armored cruiser type" on page 258, but who in their right mind would have built an armored cruiser in 1939?
1617:
2nd image fixed, 3rd image replaced...I stink at trying to find copyright status though. Would it be too much if I asked for you to go hunting for five minutes for the first image? The alternative is
1368:
1934:
jagged edges appear). However, since they still display it through that small window (like certain online art galleries), you might have to do some patchwork to get the large size images.
552:
Since you've listed the projectile weight, velocity of projectile, gun weight and various other factors, could you also list the rate of fire of the main-guns, as well as the secondary guns?
1433:
Thank you Tony. I may hate it when my crappy prose errors get pointed out, but they are a problem. I'll go through it a bit myself, and I will try to get someone to go through this. I had
1374:
End of first para, "could" is uncomfortable. What about "was intended to" or "would be able to"? Otherwise, we wonder whether it's WP's voice or a statement of the intentions back then.
1640:
214:
No, Noot only says this: "In 1938, a committee of high-ranking naval officers was appointed to investigate various possibilities of strengthening the naval forces of the
Netherlands".
2126:
1533:
2170:
2014:
866:
I had to wait two weeks for Noot. :) I'll address the rest of your concerns tomorrow or
Thursday (tomorrow is my busy day of the week with classes and closing at work).
798:
I couldn't think of a satisfactory way to add any back in without going through an entire history again, so I just added a little to a sentence mentioning the battle.
1621:, which is of much less benefit to the reader IMO becuase of how far the ship is away from the camera. Obviously if I have to I will switch it, but...yeah. Thanks, —
718:
Paragraphs 1 and 2 contradict themselves. While the one author may maintain that they could have altered the face of the war in the East Indies, the fact that four
158:
the preliminary requirements for the ships included a 4500 nm endurance @ 20 knots, but I don't see this followed up upon in the subsequent designs given by Noot.
1364:
40:
1984:
For Netherlands, if the author's identity cannot be reasonably proven, the copyright of the work can be assumed to exist for 70 years past first publishing.
1110:
I don't think the image is reasonably replaceable, but it does fail another of the NFCC, #10a, as the copyright holder is not identified. Tagged accordingly.
152:
None, and I don't know why it isn't mentioned. Either they hadn't gotten far enough to calculate fuel efficiency, or it is an oversight; either way...
2169:
There have been talk of this in other articles, and the concensus there seem to be as long as the image page attributes the source, it is okay (see
30:
17:
1070:
drawings, but I can't imagine that a drawing of a ship would take less than two weeks, and I also think that they have long to-do lists of stuff
989:
1447:) in mind for a few seconds, but she's overloaded as it is and I don't want to add on more; I'll see if I can find someone else. Thanks again! —
1699:
660:
Could the last paragraph on the 20mm simply be amalgamated into the paragraph on the 40mm, since both were considered the ship's light-AA guns?
2247:
2230:
2213:
2186:
2164:
2146:
2121:
2103:
2085:
2048:
2033:
2008:
1993:
1979:
1961:
1943:
1928:
1907:
1877:
1858:
1840:
1777:
1753:
1739:
1718:
1693:
1671:
1652:
1634:
1612:
1580:
1506:
1482:
1460:
1425:
1345:
1317:
1293:
1269:
1216:
1137:
1119:
1102:
1087:
1039:
1008:
970:
947:
925:
904:
882:
856:
814:
793:
752:
700:
640:
619:
573:
474:
390:
358:
299:
281:
252:
235:
174:
127:
109:
88:
510:
nd the older ships would then take the role of gunnery training ships from grossly obsolete ships like as the protected cruiser De Gelderland
427:
Do we know what the reasons for The Dutch's shift to Germany were? Did France indicate a hostility to the release of the designs or anything?
195:
intended class of battlecruisers built for the Netherlands, but the Second World War interrupted the plans before the ships were laid down..
1599:
covers the second image and gives me a different image that I can use for the third. And yes, I think that they should use that template. —
338:
Other than the obvious colonial pride, could you briefly go into the justifications for the defense of the East Indies (ie the resources)?
1810:
book, I think it can qualify for fair use. Images of this theoretical ship by Knowledge (XXG) users would be running into the region of
736:
s one-on-one would have probably had them for breakfast if the carriers hadn't gotten to them first. I removed that offending sentence.
2112:), but it didn't have the image filenames on it. I can't seem to spot which image it refers to here, though; can someone point it out?
2017:
by an anonymous author; would it be in the public domain? There's a date of 1925 on it, but I don't believe that is a publishing date.
1799:
1520:
366:
You mention several times the number of forty for Japan's cruiser force. Do you know the approximate split of heavy/light for these?
2109:
1948:
Sounds good. Those windows are rather annoying; I'll see what I can do with my limited image-modifying skills. Thanks again, —
1744:
I think it would be good for the projects if that email was passed to OTRS; it will stop further questionings on this front.
2151:
OTRS permission has been added. Regarding the {attribution} templates...do I have to atttribute them in the article itself? —
409:
The opening of the "design" seems way too choppy. Could this be remedied at all? I'll go through later and see what I can do.
1444:
684:
If I had a statement saying that, sure...hmmm. I could compare the amount of belt armor instead... (9" vs. 13.something")
1618:
1706:, as it is even more clearer and the source is the Netherlands Navy (below the second pic). Thanks for the help though!
2130:
1568:
1541:
1490:
Superb article which, imho, meets the FA criteria. Great detail, and no flaws as far as I can see. Definite support -
1898:
C801. There are permalinks for each image and searches (as demonstrated above). Quite a slow site for me though.
184:
The "had they gone into service" under "Operators" is too long, could it be replaced with "planned" or "intended"?
2238:. It appears to me that most, if not all, of the concerns listed above have been addressed. Excellent article.
2174:
1493:
64:
1556:
2091:
1822:
Alright. Any admin, feel free to delete it; I'll work on scanning in a line drawing from Noot...the stats from
1549:
1367:
to come to this oasis. I like aspects of this, but the writing needs a clean-up. Redundancy is an issue. Try
581:
In paragraph 1, you say seven 20mm cannons. In paragraph 3, it says eight 20mm cannons. Which one is correct?
2117:
1115:
761:
248:
1388:
is laboured in this context ... almost from a bad poem. "... chaotic situation in Europe during the ...".
437:
What attracted the Dutch to the Schanhorst design as opposed to the Deutchland or Admiral Scheer designs?
1762:
1524:
322:
The lead never actually mentions the invasion of the Netherlands. That needs to be in there somewhere.
722:-class battleships were armed with 8x14", and would have just ripped through the three Dutch cruisers.
1018:
1241:
1063:
852:
Superb job on an obscure topic that would have taken significant delving and digging, I salute you!
2182:
2099:
2044:
2020:
Yeah, I discovered that when I zoomed in and saved the first time. :-) Thanks again for the link! —
2004:
1989:
1939:
1903:
1873:
1773:
1749:
1714:
1689:
1648:
1576:
123:
1391:
Needing ... needed. Close repetition, and the second one is most unidiomatic (required/necessary).
2209:
1098:
1035:
966:
943:
938:
copyright specialist should look at the fair use rationale in light of the nature of the image.
918:
901:
875:
807:
745:
693:
633:
566:
351:
167:
118:
Read through it the other day, did not see anything that would be a problem here. Well done, ed.
1758:
You might want to get started on the OTRS for the Dutch Navy site and tagged their images with
1055:
523:
The visit compelled the designers to dump the previously-required central longitudinal bulkhead
2226:
1912:(@during trials pic) - tagged for speedy, my apologies for how much work I am making you do...
1438:
1385:
241:
1301:
680:. Could "whereas the Schanhorst class's armour could stop x-inch shells" be added to the end?
258:
I used "admiral" as a general term; all flag officers are a type of admiral, I believe (i.e.
1478:
1022:
1523:: link is gone, webarchived links do not work. Please update the link. Should it not use
1167:
197:
in the opening sentence of the lead seems far too abrupt, could that somehow be rearranged?
2243:
1420:
1407:
1334:
1258:
1205:
1811:
1225:
1059:
1044:
I think that we should wait for Stifle's opinion, but wouldn't keeping this artwork with
2178:
2095:
2040:
2000:
1985:
1935:
1899:
1869:
1815:
1769:
1745:
1710:
1685:
1644:
1572:
1536:: same as above. getting OTRS to confirm all images on the Navy site are public domain.
853:
790:
616:
232:
119:
2205:
2154:
2136:
2075:
2023:
1969:
1951:
1918:
1848:
1830:
1729:
1661:
1624:
1602:
1450:
1395:
These are a few random examples from the top. Can you find someone to go through the
1384:"Due to the chaotic situation that was Europe in the Second World War,". Sorry, this
1307:
1283:
1127:
1094:
1077:
1031:
998:
962:
939:
912:
897:
869:
801:
739:
687:
627:
560:
486:
is an extraordinarily long sentence; could it be broken up into several smaller ones?
464:
441:
The latter two designs would not had enough armor or hitting power for them, I think.
380:
345:
289:
271:
161:
99:
78:
53:
1641:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches#Common misconceptions
961:
I've noticed a few other instances of ambiguous pronouns, but I'm signing off now.
2222:
1587:
Oh, you're kidding lol...(no, I did not check the links before adding the photos).
1434:
592:
The 40 mm gun was arguably the best light anti-aircraft gun of the Second World War
263:
259:
677:
591:
522:
509:
496:
482:
207:
194:
2113:
1474:
1111:
1048:
2239:
1413:
1400:
1326:
1250:
1197:
995:
be used as fair use (non-replaceable because the ships were never built)? —
1681:
726:
Hmm, good point. Never made this connection before. Will look at tomorrow.
678:
as its armor could stop 8-inch shells from heavy cruisers but nothing more
986:
File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-63-12, Schlachtschiff "Scharnhorst".jpg
1300:
Apologies; they are gone now. Also, you may want to click your link to
841:
Done; although I normally hate two-column "Notes", this needed it. :-)
2204:- after hacking the prose around a bit, I'm quite happy with it :-).
1595:(and not nearly as good of an image...) and no image for the second.
764:, as this was an important event in the invasion of the East Indies?
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
896:- sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
2094:
checks out fine. Now we are just waiting for the OTRS to clear.
1890:
on Maritiem Digital. There are some contruction shots of the old
1966:
What would the status of works by anonymous photographers be? —
1240:
is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, a
286:
Na, you have a point—assumptions are bad! I've reworded this. —
490:
Done. Still need to explain armored vs. battle cruiser though.
598:
The ref is DiGuilian. Would you just like an extra ref added?
1030:, using that for a starting point would be appropriate.)
431:
No, the French were only given a passing mention in Noot.
2171:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Tree Sparrow
1680:
that was sunk in the Battle of Java Sea, how about this
769:
512:. what is "like as the", shouldn't it be "such as the"?
57:
1894:, but they also have Royal Netherlands Navy photos of
772:
too. Should I integrate a little of that back to here?
1552:: same as above. Date of photo? Should it not use
2127:File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg
1534:File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg
2255:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
846:The article could benefit from a light copyedit.
707:Other than that, good little comparison section.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
446:Other than that, excellent well-reffed section.
148:Any idea what the ship's range would have been?
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1017:I see there's a fair use claim for artwork on
499:, the use of "trashed" seems way too informal.
2261:No further edits should be made to this page.
266:, etc.). I can change this if need be though.
208:After a recommendation from Dutch admirals...
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1124:I have uploaded a new image over that one. —
837:Could the "Notes" be split into two columns?
1280:All of these should be addressed. Thanks, —
760:Shouldn't the second paragraph mention the
240:So, how do you know they were admirals ??
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
2221:. Comprehensive and well written article.
1845:I've uploaded a line drawing from Noot. —
484:specified above, it was judged inadequate
370:I can go back and count the numbers in
2068:(out) - alright, I added the image of
1591:gives a different image for the first
1322:Wow, thanks for catching that.--Best,
342:I believe that I have addressed this.
672:Differences from the Schanhorst class
7:
525:. Again, "dump" is way too informal.
210:, which Dutch admirals, do we know?
1800:File:Design 1047 battlecruiser.jpg
24:
1521:File:Hr. Ms. De Ruyter (1936).jpg
1569:File:De Ruyter during trials.jpg
1698:I think that I am going to use
1544:: hopefully, awaiting the OTRS.
1473:facilities was planned to be.
399:Other than that, good section.
1:
1107:Sorry folks, was on vacation.
137:- starting right from the top
1174:in the toolbox at the right.
2131:File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg
1542:File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg
31:featured article nomination
2278:
2248:04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
2187:03:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
2165:01:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
2108:I got an OTRS about this (
1525:Commons:Template:PD-NL-Gov
1412:08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1304:and see were it goes. :P —
497:and the plan was trashed..
377:I believe this is fixed? —
128:22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
110:21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
89:21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
2231:09:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
2214:12:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2175:File:Tree of sparrows.jpg
2147:13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
2122:13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
2104:20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2086:15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2049:13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2034:13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2013:I was thinking of adding
2009:04:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1994:04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1980:03:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1962:03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1944:03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1929:02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1908:01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1878:06:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1859:16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1841:13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1778:03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1754:01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1740:20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1719:01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1694:02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1672:00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1653:22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1635:15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1613:13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1581:01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1550:File:De Ruyter (C801).jpg
1507:05:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
1483:23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
1461:01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
1426:08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1346:22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1318:22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1294:21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1270:20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1217:22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1138:16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1120:14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1103:15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1088:15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1040:13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
1009:02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
971:01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
948:23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
926:15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
905:13:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
883:05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
857:04:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
815:16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
794:05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
753:16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
701:15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
641:15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
620:05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
574:16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
475:00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
391:01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
359:15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
325:What are you asking here?
300:03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
282:21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
253:20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
236:05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
175:15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
65:Design 1047 battlecruiser
2258:Please do not modify it.
2092:File:HNLMS Java 1925.jpg
1054:be alright? I know that
36:Please do not modify it.
1244:should be used instead.
984:about a week ago...see
1238:Morison (1948), p. 280
762:Battle of the Java Sea
1682:1942 Australian photo
1228:appear fine with the
56:19:29, 14 April 2009
1868:Awaiting feedback.
1363:Taken time off that
1168:disambiguation links
1019:USS Kentucky (BB-66)
1361:Oppose until fixed.
1726:this on to OTRS? —
421:Launched in '35...
405:Preliminary Design
1557:PD-NetherlandsGov
1386:thematic equative
1344:
1266:
1215:
1074:want to do. :-) —
924:
881:
813:
751:
699:
639:
594:needs a citation.
572:
357:
173:
91:
2269:
2260:
2162:
2160:
2157:
2144:
2142:
2139:
2083:
2081:
2078:
2031:
2029:
2026:
1977:
1975:
1972:
1959:
1957:
1954:
1926:
1924:
1921:
1856:
1854:
1851:
1838:
1836:
1833:
1807:
1767:
1761:
1737:
1735:
1732:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1610:
1608:
1605:
1561:
1555:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1423:
1418:
1410:
1405:
1340:
1337:
1332:
1329:
1323:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1264:
1261:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1211:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1194:
1191:1 still remains.
1135:
1133:
1130:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1053:
1047:
1023:SMS Von der Tann
1006:
1004:
1001:
923:
921:
910:
880:
878:
867:
812:
810:
799:
750:
748:
737:
735:
698:
696:
685:
679:
638:
636:
625:
593:
571:
569:
558:
524:
511:
498:
485:
472:
470:
467:
388:
386:
383:
356:
354:
343:
297:
295:
292:
279:
277:
274:
245:
209:
196:
172:
170:
159:
143:Infobox and Lead
107:
105:
102:
86:
84:
81:
71:
48:The article was
38:
2277:
2276:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2256:
2158:
2155:
2153:
2140:
2137:
2135:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2027:
2024:
2022:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1955:
1952:
1950:
1922:
1919:
1917:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1834:
1831:
1829:
1805:
1765:
1759:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1665:
1662:
1660:
1628:
1625:
1623:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1559:
1553:
1500:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1421:
1414:
1408:
1401:
1369:these exercises
1338:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1262:
1259:
1254:
1251:
1209:
1206:
1201:
1198:
1170:found with the
1131:
1128:
1126:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1062:at Commons and
1051:
1045:
1002:
999:
997:
919:
911:
876:
868:
808:
800:
768:Take a look at
746:
738:
733:
694:
686:
634:
626:
567:
559:
468:
465:
463:
384:
381:
379:
352:
344:
293:
290:
288:
275:
272:
270:
243:
168:
160:
103:
100:
98:
82:
79:
77:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2275:
2273:
2264:
2263:
2251:
2250:
2233:
2216:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2018:
1996:
1913:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1816:Byzantine Navy
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1756:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1565:
1546:
1538:
1530:
1510:
1509:
1485:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1233:
1226:External links
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1177:
1176:
1160:
1159:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1108:
1066:here all make
1012:
1011:
976:
975:
974:
973:
959:
956:
952:Other points:
931:
930:
929:
928:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
843:
842:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
757:
756:
755:
727:
710:
709:
708:
705:
704:
703:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
588:
587:
586:
578:
577:
576:
544:
543:
542:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
519:
518:
517:
506:
505:
504:
493:
492:
491:
479:
478:
477:
452:Design Studies
449:
448:
447:
444:
443:
442:
434:
433:
432:
424:
423:
422:
413:what year was
410:
402:
401:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
363:
362:
361:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
204:
203:
202:
191:
190:
189:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
139:
138:
131:
130:
93:
92:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2274:
2262:
2259:
2253:
2252:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2234:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2217:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2200:
2199:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2163:
2161:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2145:
2143:
2132:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2084:
2082:
2071:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1997:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1960:
1958:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1764:
1757:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1620:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1563:
1558:
1551:
1547:
1545:
1543:
1539:
1537:
1535:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1514:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1419:
1417:
1411:
1406:
1404:
1398:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1333:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1290:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1257:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1204:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1005:
994:
993:
987:
983:
978:
977:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:
954:
953:
951:
950:
949:
945:
941:
936:
933:
932:
927:
922:
916:
915:
908:
907:
906:
903:
899:
895:
892:
891:
884:
879:
873:
872:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
845:
840:
839:
838:
835:
834:
833:
830:
829:
816:
811:
805:
804:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
771:
767:
766:
765:
763:
758:
754:
749:
743:
742:
732:
728:
725:
724:
723:
721:
716:
715:
714:
711:
706:
702:
697:
691:
690:
683:
682:
681:
675:
674:
673:
670:
663:
662:
661:
658:
657:
656:
655:
642:
637:
631:
630:
624:Done now. :)
623:
622:
621:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
597:
596:
595:
589:
584:
583:
582:
579:
575:
570:
564:
563:
555:
554:
553:
550:
549:
548:
545:
540:
539:
538:
535:
528:
527:
526:
520:
515:
514:
513:
507:
502:
501:
500:
494:
489:
488:
487:
480:
476:
473:
471:
459:
458:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
440:
439:
438:
435:
430:
429:
428:
425:
420:
419:
418:
416:
411:
408:
407:
406:
403:
398:
392:
389:
387:
376:
375:
373:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
355:
349:
348:
341:
340:
339:
336:
335:
334:
331:
324:
323:
321:
320:
319:
318:
301:
298:
296:
285:
284:
283:
280:
278:
267:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
213:
212:
211:
205:
200:
199:
198:
192:
187:
186:
185:
182:
176:
171:
165:
164:
157:
154:
153:
151:
150:
149:
146:
145:
144:
141:
140:
136:
133:
132:
129:
125:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
106:
90:
87:
85:
74:
73:Nominator(s):
70:
69:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2257:
2254:
2235:
2218:
2201:
2173:, regarding
2152:
2134:
2110:OTRS:2762019
2073:
2069:
2067:
2021:
1967:
1949:
1916:
1895:
1891:
1886:: check out
1883:
1867:
1846:
1828:
1823:
1803:
1798:
1763:OTRS pending
1727:
1709:See above.
1703:
1677:
1659:
1622:
1600:
1592:
1567:
1548:
1540:
1532:
1519:
1515:as follows:
1513:Image review
1512:
1511:
1491:
1487:
1469:
1448:
1441:
1415:
1402:
1396:
1394:
1360:
1325:
1324:
1305:
1281:
1248:
1247:
1237:
1235:
1230:checker tool
1229:
1196:
1195:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1171:
1165:
1156:
1125:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1027:
996:
991:
981:
934:
913:
893:
870:
851:
836:
831:
802:
759:
740:
730:
729:Yeeeah, the
719:
717:
712:
688:
676:
671:
659:
628:
590:
580:
561:
551:
546:
537:Final Design
536:
521:
508:
495:
481:
462:
451:
436:
426:
414:
412:
404:
378:
371:
365:
346:
337:
332:
287:
269:
264:vice admiral
260:rear admiral
257:
206:
193:
183:
162:
155:
147:
142:
134:
115:
97:
94:
76:
72:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1888:this search
1172:finder tool
1028:Scharnhorst
1026:similar to
982:Scharnhorst
2133:. Sorry! —
2015:this photo
1884:Suggestion
1619:this image
1584:(removed)
1166:Fix the 6
333:Background
2179:Jappalang
2096:Jappalang
2041:Jappalang
2001:Jappalang
1986:Jappalang
1936:Jappalang
1900:Jappalang
1896:De Ruyter
1892:De Ruyter
1870:Jappalang
1770:Jappalang
1746:Jappalang
1711:Jappalang
1686:Jappalang
1678:De Ruyter
1645:Jappalang
1593:De Ruyter
1573:Jappalang
1564:(removed)
1529:(removed)
1068:beautiful
1064:Colosseum
1056:Anynobody
541:No issues
415:De Rutyer
135:Commments
120:TomStar81
2206:Shimgray
1824:Conway's
1704:Conway's
1700:this one
1676:For the
1445:contribs
1378:little).
1246:--Best,
1242:ref name
1236:The ref
1193:--Best,
1157:Comments
1095:Kablammo
1032:Kablammo
992:Conway's
990:here in
963:Kablammo
940:Kablammo
914:the_ed17
909:Thanks!
898:Ealdgyth
894:Comments
871:the_ed17
803:the_ed17
741:the_ed17
689:the_ed17
629:the_ed17
562:the_ed17
547:Armament
372:Conway's
347:the_ed17
163:the_ed17
54:Karanacs
50:promoted
2236:Support
2219:Support
2202:Support
1488:Support
1470:Support
1435:Maralia
1302:WP:DABS
935:Comment
244:Georgia
188:Yes. :P
116:Support
2223:Ruslik
2114:Stifle
1804:Conway
1475:Nick-D
1422:(talk)
1409:(talk)
1399:text?
1112:Stifle
1060:Alexpl
1021:. At
789:Sure.
615:Sure.
585:Fixed.
529:Fixed.
516:Fixed.
503:Fixed.
417:built?
2240:Cla68
1812:WP:OR
1702:from
1397:whole
920:Chat
877:Chat
832:Other
809:Chat
747:Chat
731:Kongo
720:Kongo
695:Chat
664:Done.
635:Chat
568:Chat
353:Chat
242:Sandy
201:Done.
169:Chat
156:EDIT:
16:<
2244:talk
2227:talk
2210:talk
2183:talk
2177:).
2129:and
2118:talk
2100:talk
2070:Java
2045:talk
2005:talk
1990:talk
1940:talk
1904:talk
1874:talk
1774:talk
1750:talk
1715:talk
1690:talk
1649:talk
1639:Per
1597:This
1589:This
1577:talk
1479:talk
1439:talk
1416:Tony
1403:Tony
1365:poll
1116:talk
1099:talk
1072:they
1058:and
1036:talk
967:talk
944:talk
902:Talk
770:this
713:Fate
249:Talk
231:Ok.
124:Talk
2156:Ed
2138:Ed
2077:Ed
2025:Ed
1971:Ed
1953:Ed
1920:Ed
1850:Ed
1832:Ed
1768:.
1731:Ed
1684:?
1663:Ed
1626:Ed
1604:Ed
1452:Ed
1309:Ed
1285:Ed
1129:Ed
1079:Ed
1000:Ed
854:Cam
791:Cam
617:Cam
466:Ed
382:Ed
374:;)
291:Ed
273:Ed
233:Cam
101:Ed
52:by
2246:)
2229:)
2212:|
2208:|
2185:)
2159:17
2141:17
2120:)
2102:)
2080:17
2047:)
2028:17
2007:)
1992:)
1974:17
1956:17
1942:)
1923:17
1906:)
1876:)
1853:17
1835:17
1818:.)
1776:)
1766:}}
1760:{{
1752:)
1734:17
1717:)
1692:)
1666:17
1651:)
1629:17
1607:17
1579:)
1560:}}
1554:{{
1481:)
1455:17
1331:RU
1312:17
1288:17
1255:RU
1202:RU
1132:17
1118:)
1101:)
1082:17
1052:}}
1049:rk
1046:{{
1038:)
1003:17
969:)
946:)
917::
900:-
874::
806::
744::
692::
632::
565::
469:17
385:17
350::
294:17
276:17
262:,
251:)
166::
126:)
104:17
83:17
80:Ed
59:.
33:.
2242:(
2225:(
2181:(
2116:(
2098:(
2043:(
2003:(
1988:(
1938:(
1902:(
1872:(
1827:—
1808:s
1806:'
1772:(
1748:(
1713:(
1688:(
1658:—
1647:(
1575:(
1562:?
1527:?
1501:S
1498:I
1495:U
1477:(
1442:·
1437:(
1371:.
1339:O
1336:C
1328:T
1263:Ө
1260:C
1252:₮
1232:.
1210:O
1207:C
1199:T
1114:(
1097:(
1034:(
965:(
942:(
734:'
461:—
268:—
247:(
122:(
96:—
75:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.