Hello, Tfdavisatsnetnet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Rather than add the SCB info to the lead of the articles, it's probably better to place it in the Design or Construction section of the articles. BilCat (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but I wanted to keep the edit to a minimum. I didn't see an easy way to add it to that section as currently written. PS Wait, it IS in the Design section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the addition to the USS Enterprise article. Also, you need to go back and add the sources to the other articles you've added the SCB info to. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
August 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hey, given your interests, you may want to follow the WT:SHIPS & WT:MILHIST project talk pages. Just add them to your watchlist. You might also find things of interest on the project pages themselves, (as opposed to the associates talk pages). Anyway, give them a look.
Also, I just noticed your post from above. No, the "ping" didn't work that time, but like everything here, it takes a little time to catch on. Basically {{Yo|username}} is the template you wanted to use there. One other thing, you must add your signature at the same time you use the ping template, it won't work unless they are both on the page at the same time when you hit save (or "publish changes" as its called now). Good luck - wolf23:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. (& the ping worked :) It's a pretty group of people on the two projects, you'll see many of the same names at both. They're a good resource, you can see ongoing discussions about subjects and upcoming changes, both of which you can contribute to, and there's almost always answers for any questions you may have. Cheers - wolf05:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Just an 'fyi'; when looking to start a discussion that involves more than one WikiProject (such as "MOS: Inappropriate use of boldface", at WT:SHIPS & WT:MILHIST), you should select one page to host the discussion then post notifications at the other(s). (You will find that ships and milhist often intersect on articles and issues.) But even with any other wikiprojects, or individual editors you may want or need to involve, if you repost the comment on every page, you can create multiple, parallel discussions. Instead, limit to one and notify on others. For example, use a section header like: "Notification", and for the comment add something basic like: "Seeking comments on the issue of ______. Please see (link) eg:WikiProject:SHIPS#discussion."
Just a question; when adding content, (with a summary states; "citations forthcoming"), it's a good idea to add the sources immediately after, or very shortly after. When do you anticipate adding them? (meanwhile, it could be tagged {{cn}}, or someone could just revert your edits. I won't, but I'm just sayin'... ) - wolf06:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was too tired to continue for the day, and I was afraid that my old sick computer would lose the text I had been working on (a perpetual concern). I think within 24 hours would be a good rule. I did resolve a long standing 'citation needed' just before making the change in question, so I am trying to add proper citations.
I've started to add the citations. I do want to verify them, and the French sources need to be translated, the one that is a PDF is going to take me awhile. Should be later today. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In response to youredit summaries: that other articles are wrong is not a good justification to make additional articles wrong. And if I've taken the time to fix these articles, you shouldn't break them again. Furthermore, I have no obligation to fix all of the articles that are wrong simply because you prefer consistency. You are of course free to fix them yourself. As for "[leaving] CLAA-120 as boldface", yes, because the article title is almost always in bold text at the first use in the beginning of the article. You've been editing here for more than a decade; does this really need to be explained to you? Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I was not referring to the article title (I just added CLAA-120 to that today or yesterday). I was referring to the 'Construction and career' section entry. And yes, I am to the point where I really need to have 'assume good faith' explained to me, since so many contributors don't. The worst I ever saw was a fellow who spent pages of his personal talk page explaining why he wasn't mean and contentious when it was obvious he was. To my mind, since the MoS explicitly allows exceptions, a widely used and long standing 'wrong' use of boldface or other formatting is not really wrong: we do need to assume the good faith of our predecessors.
I am going to make this a matter of discussion on the WT:Ships page. If the consensus is to remove the boldface from USN ship reclassifications I will do all of them, just as I did with the boldface on the List of cruiser of the USN article.
That would be a waste of time; whatever WP:LOCALCONSENSUS emerges at WT:SHIPS would not override the MoS, which represents a far wider and longer-standing consensus. The MoS explicitly instructs editors to "avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text", which is what you are trying to do. Exceptions to the MoS need to be justified, and "we've always done it this way" is rather dim logic.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An article you recently created, Exercise Vostok, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be re-written as a List article? After I created it I noticed that the article I cloned it from - List of Zapad Exercises - is a list article, but I mistakenly failed to preserve that feature. The only other difference between the two is that the Zapad list has 3 more wlinks than does the Vostok article.
Frankly, if the Vostok article is not suitable even as a list article then I don't see why the Zapad article should be.
This is a difficult one, thanks for your messages. For a list article, it is still an article, and your sources should be clear, even when there is limited information. The other one is very similar - but we have hundreds of thousands of unreferenced articles, and try not to add to that number. Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Have to tell you I have had 1 reversion in all of the city articles and none of the state articles so far: "Undid good faith edit by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk); not a close relationship to article topic". I have to say, when I started this I was curious as to how much objection I would get. My main motive was, of course, the readers who say to themselves "Hey, I didn't know my city had these ships named after it, let me see what this is about", which is an expansion of a topic, not a close narrowing. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking to dump any kind of huge fixit project on your lap, (if a problem even exists that is), as I said, I know you worked a lot on these pages, and I was hoping that, if anything, you would have some info regarding this issue (eg: either "yes, they were all commissioned, every single one", or "no, some of these ships were actually not commissioned, and some of these pages need some updating".) Anyway, if you have any info that would be of help here, it would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf03:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind such a commission (i.e., 'dump') from you. I must admit, I have no idea what the definitive answer is to your question. Based on the sources I have read, I strongly suspect that up through WW2 any vessel which carried any weapons larger than light machine guns, or which had a sufficiently large displacement (i.e., drydocks), was commissioned for purely legal reasons related to command issues. Look at the USS Dewey (YFD-1) article, she was actually christened. So, yes, I strongly suspect that floating dry docks were commissioned. Are the sources I have read 'strong' RS? I don't know, I've seen the controversy over some on the Talk pages. I will take a stab on this issue tomorrow. @Thewolfchild:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any issues with sourcing right now. As for these ships, perhaps each of us (whenever we have some free time over the few days or so,) could grap some ramdom samplings of ships with "USS" in the name, and an article, and see if there were any actually comissioned. Then we can meet back here, compare notes, and go from there. Sound ok to you? - wolf04:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already seen USS in many Navsource and NVR articles regarding small ships, even barges. I've only not seen the prefix with launches and LCVPs.
I decided to look for commissioning of PT boats, since the WP article on them is silent on this matter. The web site Historic Naval Ships Visitors Guide - PT-615 states that PT-615 was launched on 18 July 1945 and commissioned on 17 Sep 1945. If this is an RS then I conclude that PT boats would have carried the USS prefix.
Looking at the WP article Ship commissioning we can see that it covers 1) ceremony and 2) ship trials and acceptance. There is nothing about a ship's commission as a legal status. I took a quick look last night at an online version of the US Code to see if I could find anything - I would think that ultimately defines a ship's commission - but nada so far, and in any case the current Code might not reflect WW2-era law. The only other thing I found was a Tufts Law school article on ship sovereignty (the US extends its sovereignty to all USS, USNS, USCGS, and civilian vessels chartered by the military). I'm thinking of contacting the US Naval Institute - I'm a life member - to see if they could point me to any RS. @Thewolfchild:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up. I contacted the US Naval Institute and the sources that they sent me are exactly the same that are already referenced in Wikipedia. I'd bet they simply looked it up here. The only alternative would be to actually visit nearby research libraries and see what they have on their shelves. ٪
Geez... tbh, I had set this aside then forgot about it as I got caught up with other things. So, as for any ship articles that have "USS" as part of the name when they shouldn't (and vice-versa), I don't have anything to report. But, I'm not really worried about it either, WP is always growing and improving, and standing errors eventually get found and fixed. Now, as for the legality behind a commissioned ship, that is damned interesting question. I always believed there was something official behind it, but where that may be codified in law I don't know either. Cheers - wolf22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kammhuber Line into Radar picket. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bivalve (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bivalent.
I reverted your edit to Fairfield, Connecticut. At "Mill River" you wrote, "Its watershed drains 35 square miles in Fairfield, making it the largest in the town." Your first source calls it the "Mill River Basin", and says its location is in Fairfield County, Connecticut, not the town of Fairfield. Your second source says, "the watershed is relatively large, covering about 35 square miles within Fairfield and four other towns." I did not check the other rivers you added. Please note that "watersheds" do not exist within US cities, however, rivers and creeks that are part of a watershed do flow through cities. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was just in the process of fixing that mistake re 35 square miles when you reverted it.
I noticed that you are adding variant info to List of United States Air Force aircraft designations (1919–1962). When I rewrote the US aircraft designation lists, I had left that information out as the scope of the lists was aircraft designations rather than aircraft themselves. I also noticed that you added the RAF names to the A-22 and A-23 in this edit, which I also am not sure about as many other aircraft in the list also had RAF names as well as other designations in other countries. Since basic information on the aircraft and variants can be found in the articles they link to, I think it is best to leave such information out to avoid scope. - ZLEAT\C03:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But...isn't one point of a list is to provide information to spark an interest to click on the articles they link to, articles that might not be accessed without the additional information? I admit this is a balancing act.
The point of a list article isn't necessarily to spark interest in the articles it lists, but to, well, list the articles. I'm not sure the added benefit of including the extra information outweighs the impact on readability, but perhaps that's something to discuss further. You do make a valid point about the A-22 and A-23, but perhaps it should be because the USAAF designations were only for contract purposes rather than the lack of a USAAF nickname, as the scope of the list is US designations, not matching US designations to those used by foreign air forces.
If we do want to include basic information about the aircraft, we should at least be consistent about it. Perhaps restructuring the list to a table format similar to List of undesignated military aircraft of the United States. The problem with this, however, is that the large number of pre-1962 designations would make for very large tables, and readability on mobile devices would likely be negatively impacted. - ZLEAT\C05:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% in agreement on the negative aspects of tables, IMO they are best used for information that benefits from sorting functionality. Most of the articles with large tables are basically unreadable. BTW, I am also in agreement with you that readability requires that extra text be kept to a minimum; again, it is a balance among objectives.
After doing a little research, it turns out I was wrong about the A-22 and A-23 designations being used for Lend-Lease. Both designations were dropped by time the RAF variants were produced, so I've removed the RAF names from the list. - ZLEAT\C15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I just know what would attract me in reading a list.
I have wrestled with the same issues as you have. Over time I have heavily edited List of cruisers of the United States Navy. In one example, I removed the sinking of the USS Phoenix during the Falklands War because it wasn't in US service at the time, a reason similar to what you have used on this page. Someone put it back. I decided it wasn't worth an argument. Such is life.
That's understandable. One other thing I noticed is that you added that the A-42 and A-43 were the attack variants of the B-42 and F-87, respectively, though technically it's the other way around as both were originally developed as attack aircraft before their intended roles were changed. Perhaps it should read that they are predecessors of the B-42/F-87. - ZLEAT\C21:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We can change that.
I do have a large recommendation for an extensive change. I will copy the section into my sandbox, make the change, and get back to you for your inspection.
OK, please look at my sandbox User:Tfdavisatsnetnet/sandbox and tell me what you think. I tried to make the list less visually busy and more specific (everything now reads 'redesignated from' or 'redesignated to').
OK, changes made. I think that's it for me for now.
One thought: too bad we can't find an RS on the legendary Congressional debate over whether the F4H Phantom II or the F-110 Spectre was the better plane, and how that forced the Pentagon into the unified Tri-service designations. It would make a great intro to the 1962 Tri-service list article!
I have never heard of such a debate. I imagine the "debate over which was the better plane" part is just an urban legend, though. - ZLEAT\C00:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey, just saw your edit. I get what you were thinking, but layout issues aside, the info in that box is already found in the navbox at the foot of the page. But hey, it doesn't hurt to try things out. Cheers - wolf05:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the side infobox, it is much more visual, and the reader doesn't have to click on it see what info is there (unlike the bottom infobox). I thought I'd give it a try. My mistake was editing the section and not the whole article, because the preview didn't give me enough info to make the proper decision. Live and learn. Thanks for the cheers. @Thewolfchild:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
January 2024
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Hybrid airship, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
