This is an archive of past discussions with User:Parsecboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your reason for reverting my edit, "(no reason to remove the definite article, and HFDF is a proper noun)", goes against the consistency of the article for "High-frequency direction finding" and the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which dictates:
"Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or it is part of the title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien)."
The relevant section of the MOS (i.e., MOS:SECTIONS) states that "The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well", italics mine. There are relatively few hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, and certainly very few when it comes to formatting content.
As for the title of the article, it's wrong - the term is a proper noun, and therefore should be capitalized. See for instance here, here, and here for starters. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Nebraska (BB-14) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Virginia (BB-13) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Ohio (BB-12) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
For completing 17 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Nate, I've recently decided to cut back on specific dates at TFA except in cases where the reader is supposed to infer some meaning from the date. So, for tomorrow's TFA, I'm going with "she was laid down and launched in 1905 and completed the next year". Is that a problem? - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine - no need to have anything specific about the construction details unless it's an anniversary of a launch or something. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Missouri (BB-11) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Maine (BB-10) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maine-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Wisconsin (BB-9) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his great efforts in the June 2015 Military History monthly article-writing contest, placing first with 109 points from 18 articles. Well done! Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Illinois-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit late on this, but I have nominated the Battle of Malvern Hill article for FA again see here) I thought you might like to know. It has been through six or seven copyedits (but who is counting) and passed an A-Class review. A review by you and some comments would be awesome and greatly appreciated. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Alabama (BB-8) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wyoming-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Illinois (BB-7) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Mars (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Hannibal (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Caesar (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Illustrious (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Since I have considerable respect for your contributions in general, I am not going to report you for edit warring even though you've possibly violated 3RR on this article. I'm also not going to give you one of those warning-template things since that can be taken as an insult by an experience editor such as yourself. However, I will point out that an administrator should know better, and I will ask you to stop the edit war. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
For outstanding wikification of the italian cruiser, I hereby award you, the Original Barnstar, for making the Naval Community of Wikipedia proud! Luis Santos24 (Have a good day!) 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it is rather irritating that you delete the hull numbers on articles of USN ships that have names that have been used only once. The hull number is an integral part of a ship's name. And, if you go on and delete it from any smaller ship (destroyers, etc.), I think this is not useful at all, since the hull number gives everyone an explanation on what type of ship it is. Could you explain your reasoning, please. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, and most importantly, hull numbers are not part of any ship's name. Many vessels have had their numbers changed throughout their careers. Secondly, the hull numbers are only useful for a small slice of our readers - namely, experts who are already familiar with the ships in question. Thirdly, Wikipedia naming conventions specify that we do not disambiguate article titles when there are no ambiguous topics. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Only those that have unambiguous names, as I come to them. You might be interested in knowing about this recent discussion, which basically supported what I've been doing, and actually suggests that we ought to get rid of hull numbers altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, using the launch dates would be better than nothing at all, in my opinion. I admit, that the USN-hull numbers are not consistent in itself, like DDG-1000 or SSN-21. Also, a designation for airplanes like F/A-18 should not exist (according to the US-system it should be the FA-18, funny it is that the EA-18 is not the E/A-18). Maybe, you could at least add the launching date, so everything has not to be changed again, afterwards. Or, you might not have time to change it, anyway... :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
July 2015 MilHist article-writing contest
The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the project coordinators, congratulations on placing second in the July 2015 MilHist article-writing contest, with 63 points from 11 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - I probably should have put the vacation template on my talk page ;) Anyway, I see that you've reverted his edits, but I went ahead and gave you rollback so it'll be easier the next time he returns. Parsecboy (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that; I've still got a few more to check so it'll be handy. Hope you enjoyed the holiday, and that it was refreshing! Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, we had a great time! The next time our friend shows up, let me know and I'll block the account. I have one or two of the articles he edits watchlisted, but I don't always catch the edits. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just happened to be on when he went on his spree. And you'd think he'd have at least that much sense, but it seems his ego is more important. Good luck with the cleanup! Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maximilian von Spee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
That is odd - one would think that the number of survivors rescued would be easy to count. I'll have to look around, but I did notice that the 89 fatalities figure was there before I rewrote the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That might be the case - if they wanted to exaggerate the death toll to increase anti-British sentiment, I suppose. Osborne's The Battle of Heligoland Bight also has the 89 deaths figure, as does the Der Spiegel article you added. I'll check Hildebrand et. al. later, but I'd think if they had given a different number, I'd have included the discrepancy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Beware of User:Pam-javelin
Hi, Parsecboy, just letting you know that there is a woman's liberationist using the handle User:Pam-javelin, who is altering any article on warships to gender neutral. This user has repeatedly removed "Her/She" from the article HMS Rodney (29) and seems determined to push her sexist agenda on the traditional use of Her/She in Warship articles. I have warned her to refrain from vandalising this and all other such articles or I will report her to an Admin, which I am doing now. Thanks.The Dart (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the situation - if she reverts again I'll take care of it. But you might check your last edit on the article, it looks like you accidentally reverted yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think I did revert myself as it was reverted by an unlogged user and I have been logged in for over 2 hours. But?The Dart (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't understand how that happened. I reverted a revert from 220.253.115.75 which has disappeared from the history, it says 2 intermediate edits from 2 users. Also there was a comment from her added to the edit which only appears in my own talk page, but not hers or anywhere else? Was there an edit conflict? Have I been hacked?The Dart (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh, that's odd - I've had similar things happen in the past, where it looked like I was reverting something but the edit went through wrong. Sometimes the servers do strange things. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nate, I traced the IP address of 220.253.115.75 and Google earthed it. It's in the same city as me and uses the same provider as me (iinet.com.au). I even found the street address, its about 10 Km's from me. All the best, Bill.The Dart (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Depending on if I need to finish the reviews for this round of the GA Cup, I may hold off on reviewing them until the end of the month. Also can you take a look at HMS Zealous (1919)? She's the only cancelled V and W-class destroyer that's got an article and I'm not even sure if she was laid down or not. I'm inclined to nuke the article from orbit, but I'll leave that for you to decide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for taking them on. And as for Zealous, she wasn't laid down as far as I can tell, so I've redirected the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I probably just copied the tag from an older account that had been checked. And thanks for taking care of the last sock. Parsecboy (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm bring this up to speed and am hoping that HRS has some details about how much of the Barbara AA refit had been completed when she came out of refit in November '44. While it's entirely possible that I've missed things in Whitley, I've only found her end-of-war outfit, which is cool, but I'm hoping for more. Koop & Schmolke say that she received her 37mm guns on 20 December and then received additional guns in February '45, which raises the question of what she did get during the refit. Seems like just 20mm guns, but whether they were twins, singles or Flakvierling(s)? Anything in HRS on the matter?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it's going to be particularly helpful - they give the same 20 December date for the 37mm guns, but don't mention anything in the narrative about specific changes during the refit. In the table, it simply says "From 1944...up to 8 Flak-2cm". Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the September 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 33 points from five articles. Congratulations! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit for an creditable 11 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian ironclad Palestro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragusa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Yeah, I saw them - I was just a little preoccupied with finishing the rest of the ironclads - will get to them today. Parsecboy (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
File:German battlecruiser SMS Seydlitz in port, prior to World War I (retouched).jpg listed for deletion
Thanks for your understanding Parsecboy. I was self reverting when you very efficiently reverted. Call it pride ;) but I thought I would put my own screw up on the record. The 4th Cruiser squadron would be a good little starting stub. I will get on to that. Good outcome for the pedia! Hope all's well with you. Regards Simon Irondome (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you have done work on this page. My edits were well thought out in an attempt to make the page better. I appreciate your concern for the article but I do not fell that all of my edits were in error. I went back and editted out some of the things I added to the info box, although I feel that they should be there. The reason I changed it to 6 boilers is because of the 4 pages I found two of them had the number of boilers listed and they both said 6. I have changed it back to 8. I also feel that the info box should have as much info as possible because some people might not take the time to read through an article to find certain information. Please feel free to discuss with me if there are changes you still don't agree with, I'm not doing this to give disinformation. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote the article. Here are the problems. First, infoboxes should be very brief summaries of the article. Things like the ship sponsor or the ICS code should generally not be present. This is not the first time someone has told you this. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships has 8 boilers - moreover, 6 boilers on 4 shafts doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Piping "German" to Nazi Germany or "Japan" to Empire of Japan are low value links - they don't add much of anything to readers' comprehension. And lastly, swapping out piped links for the {{ship}} template isn't particularly necessary, as it's simply visible on our end, not the readers'. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that you're wrong on how people read the infoboxes as I've received several complaints that ship infoboxes are, in general, too long and visually dominate the article. So I've been paring down the info that I put into infoboxes to shorten them as much as possible. Forex, is the model name or caliber length of weapon really necessary if the weapon is linked? For the average reader, I believe not; they're certainly less important than the bore diameter which most people generally understand.
Here's the text from Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship characteristics: "Remember that the infobox, like a lead section, is meant to be a summary of the information that is provided in the article itself. To this end, avoid excessive detail or accuracy in the infobox; if required, elaborate in the article body." Your habit of cramming as much info into the infobox as possible flagrantly violates this guideline. For ships that received a major reconstruction like HMS Renown, I use a second, dated, infobox that usually only lists the parameters have changed from when it was built. All of the other changes like the constantly evolving light AA armament are covered in the main body in more detail than the infobox can provide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
First off, why are these items in the infoboxes if they aren't to be used. Second, I told you I was wrong about the boilers. And third, you're looking at these articles as if they are only being read by "experts". If someone reads it and they see that we were fighting Germany, France, Italy and Japan they are going to be confused. Having links to who the countries were at the time of the war helps them understand the article better. And I'm sorry Sturmvogel 66, I know I didn't agree with you on Milwaukee, and I understand you guys feel some ownership with these articles, but that doens't mean that other peoples ideas should be totally discounted. I look at infoboxes as a quick reference to the ship in question. If I want to know what a ships dimmensions or armament were I'm going to look at the infobox way before reading through the entire article. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox ship career"This ship infobox supports a very large number of fields, including some specialty fields that will rarely be used. Some fields simply don't make sense in some cases. Some different sets of code have been prepared using only the most common fields. Select the most appropriate set below and copy and paste the entire code to the top of a ship article, then fill in as many fields as possible. Empty fields should generally be kept so that a future editor can fill them in unless they make no sense for the ship in question." Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship characteristics: "However, the information and details should not be "dumbed down" too much and obvious details should be avoided." I'm not trying to fight, I just think you guys aren't looking at these articles from a Novice point of view.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting that you think you're making articles more relevant to non-experts when you're trying to insert far too much specialist information into infoboxes. Does a general reader have any idea what the significance of the ship sponsor is? Or what those little colorful squares mean? Cluttering the infobox with generally useless information obscures the main points readers should be able to draw from it.
Here's the issue with linking Nazi Germany or Empire of Japan - readers will either know it or they won't. In the case of the latter, knowing what regime ruled the country in question will add zero useful information to this article. What difference does it make to a sentence about a cruiser sinking an aircraft carrier what the government in Tokyo was? Moreover, the Manual of Style generally prohibits linking these kinds of terms, unless there is some special relevance. Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Inserting ((ship)) template
To your previous discussion about Wichita, I just wanted your opinion on the use of the ship template. I go around swapping out the piped links to a) prevent people from inserting seven hundred ident numbers into the articles, b) if the format ever changes about how ship links should be presented, I thought it would be easier to just change a template than go through every piped wikilink in every article.
My point was that for readers, it's essentially value neutral - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it's not something I'm going to worry about when reverting his other, more problematic changes. I'd say go ahead and keep doing them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Nate, Brian just scheduled this one, I'll get to work on it tonight. Let me know if you want anything changed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Btw, Battlecruiser says that two Mackensens rather than 3 were launched (and cites Roberts). I'll remove that part from the blurb until I get better information. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Both are correct, in a way - Prinz Eitel Friedrich was launched after the war so the slipway could be cleared for other projects. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not comfortable with that level of detail in a TFA ... the readership is broader than the readership for articles. I'll think of something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please check diff because there is a problem at Re Umberto-class ironclad#General characteristics and machinery (see "convert: unknown unit"). The implication of the edit seems to be that there was some confusion about whether values were metric tons (MT) or long tons (LT). The problem is that "{{convert|13673|MT|sp=us}}" was changed to "{{convert|13058|13673|MT|LT|sp=us}}". I would fix it by removing "|13673" but I can't work out where 13058 came from, so it would be better for you to look at it, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me, too. It's definitely a focus for nationalists, which is why I haven't tried to bring it in line with all of the other ironclad articles. Yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the October 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 65 points from 10 articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Italia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italia-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I've just been slammed lately - was trying to finish it up all week but had little to no time. I actually had the editing window open since Monday, trying to chip away at issues as I had the time to do them. Everything should be addressed now though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the November 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 76 points from 12 articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Regina Maria Pia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
If you have your preferences set to display the assessment on the article page itself (which I do), it still shows "Start-class" even though the template produces a B-class rating. Not all that significant, really, but I figured I'd fix it anyway. Thanks for assessing the article, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, understood. I usually leave the assessments as "start" because it does not show up as any different on my setup. Good article: covers the subject very well, something I knew nothing about. Hamish59 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it was something I just stumbled upon the other day - a minor but nonetheless noteworthy engagement that deserved an article better than the one it had. Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Affondatore you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 7 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Roma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This revert is not supported by WP:OVERLINK. I went to that page to see that ship, only to find the battle it was in was not linked. I, and I'm sure others as well, don't want to hunt around to see if there is a link, somewhere. An additional link in a different section is permissible, if it is helpful, which is the case here. You're am admin... you should know this. Just as you know you shouldn't be gearing up for an edit war.
There are more important things to attend to anyway. If you want to be helpful, have look at the contribs for this editor. All made to ship articles, and almost all disruptive. I've gone back from present day to mid-November and have had to revert or manually fix dozens of edits. I have found where dozens more have already been reverted by other editors who regularly maintain ship-related articles. Feel free to pitch in and help clean up this guy's mess. - theWOLFchild12:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If you had any experience at FAC, you would know that is not the case. Any links highlighted by the dupelink checker are routinely removed.
I have provided perfectly good reasoning for the link, supported by policy. You cited wp:overlink, which didn't support your revert. Now your attacking my "experience"... which is "not particularly good form". You've cited FAC, which is irrelevant here. And, you've just made your third revert within the hour, while a discussion is still active. Like I said, you're an admin, you're supposed to know better. I made the change simply to improve the article, which it does. You're sticking to your guns on this because... why? Pride? Let it go already.
I've brought to your attention a much more important matter. Are you gonna help with that or what? I've gone all the way back to the beginning of November, and starting to make my way into October. There is a lot of cleaning up needed here. - theWOLFchild12:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Read the entire section. You'll find this line: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article" (emphasis in original).
FAC is irrelevant here? We're talking about a Featured Article. Your change does not improve the article per established policy and practice.
I'm supposed to know better because I'm an admin? You're no newbie - you're supposed to know better than to start an edit war. I'm sticking to my guns on this because I'm right and you're wrong. Do as you say - let it go already.
I wouldn't exactly call Dallas's edits disruptive - perhaps unhelpful in some (and maybe even most) cases, but certainly not malicious. In any event, I have reverted and/or repaired his or her edits as I've come across them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article (emphasis is mine). "Generally" certainly doesn't come across as rock-solid support for your case.
Your change does not improve the article per established policy and practice., no... just per you. It's a ship class article. If readers go to it to read about a particular ship, like I did, they won't find a link to the most important part of that ship's history, and they shouldn't have to hunt for it. This is why we have links. There is absolutely no harm what-so-ever to adding that link. The policy is expressly written to allow for additional links when the situation calls for it, such as this one.
you're supposed to know better than to start an edit war. - and yet you have more reverts here than I. Look to your own actions before criticizing. You're the admin, and as such you're held to a higher standard. Right now you are not meeting that standard.
I'm sticking to my guns on this because I'm right and you're wrong. - wow. Even for you that is shockingly arrogant and uncollegial. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" here... just what is best for the article. This is about the article, not you.
I wouldn't exactly call Dallas's edits disruptive... - ffs, you'll argue anything, won't you? I didn't say they were deliberate or vandalism, this is a competency issue and they are disruptive due to the sheer number that have had to be reverted. I only mention them here because I'm at loss to figure why you put so much effort fighting such a minor point when there is clearly more important issues needing attending to. I've now gone thru a majority of his total contribs and have yet to find a single revert by you. But, nevermind... just keep following me around and make sure every article I touch is the way you like it. - theWOLFchild06:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, generally. Which means one should have a good reason to ignore the rule. Repeating a link 3 paragraphs down is not a good reason.
There's no harm? The article, a Featured Article, is expected to adhere to the Manual of Style. Your edit moves the article out of compliance with the MoS. That is obviously not an improvement.
"Look to your own actions before criticizing" - if only you could have internalized that bit of condescending advice before you had started talking! But, now it's my turn - calling other editors arrogant is shockingly uncivil and uncollegial. Though we don't have a policy that prohibits arrogance, real or imagined, we do have a policy that prohibits personal attacks. If you cannot find it in yourself to bite your tongue, I'll kindly ask you to end this discussion.
It's not arrogance, it's a simple statement of fact. You have a faulty understanding of the MoS based on a shallow reading meant to support your position. Tell me, how many articles have you taken through FAC? Do you have any experience with what the community expects from a Featured Article?
Couldn't find me fixing and/or reverting Dallas's edits? Try their most recent edits here and my correction. Anyway, no, I wouldn't call their edits wholly disruptive. There's nothing wrong with this, this, or this (and that was just a cursory look through their most recent dozen edits or so). Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll kindly ask you to end this discussion. - and that's exactly what I'll do. This "discussion" (as you put it) is pointless. You preach WP:NPA, when clearly you need to be reading up on WP:OWN and about a half-dozen other policies. You clearly must have things your way, and your way only, and I have no further interest in suffering you absurd intransigence. - theWOLFchild20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But just to be clear, it's not my way, it's the community's way - whether you recognize that is not my job. You have yourself a nice day. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Terribile you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Lepanto you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
.png)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
