User talk:Lyndaship/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lyndaship. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Nomination of French ship Bordelais for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French ship Bordelais until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Deleting of HMVS Nepean edit
I have added multiple sources about ithe boat's fate. yet they were deleted in your edit. I think history should be above design. Yoy also deleted Russian scare point which was instrumental in buying of ships. Could you tell the reasoning behind your edits? Changeworld1984 (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for trying to improve this article. Unfortunately I think I reverted all your changes for one reason or another. Firstly obviously the design section should come before the history section, then you changed gender against WP:SHE4SHIPS and missed out italics for ship names. These minor faults could of course be changed while retaining the substance of your edits. However then the major problems appeared, firstly you had introduced an error misreading the references with regard to the delivery port and then used a lot of non WP:RS to promote a claim that the ship was not scrapped when the sources seem to be uncertain which ship this was. The RS state that she was scrapped, find another RS which says she wasn't and feel free to add it but not blogs and associations which have no editorial oversight. With regard to the Russian scare again you need a RS which supports that, the existing article stated French and Russian scares and it was sourced. I would suggest Conways and also theres a book about the Australian Colonial Navy which might give further detail Lyndaship (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't claim that boat was not scrapped, if I implied then I am truly sorry. I wrote in my original edit 'In 1912, it was declared for disposal and was stripped of all its useful fittings at Williamstown before being beached ashore on Swan Island' and then wrote about its resting place. I also quoted Rose author of Australian Colonial Navy on the topic of boat's resting place. In ''Twenty Years of recording iron, steel and steam shipwrecks in Western Australia (Presenting the work of Col Cockram, MAAWA)'', a research paper in which Russian scare as the leading cause was mentioned on page 142 which was cited in the article. I misread the delivery point which I admit as it was referencing SS Darwin port, a ship, but I assumed it to the place Darwin. And I also didn't know about the policy of the ships being refered as she. Thank you for clearing my doubts about the edit. Changeworld1984 (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I accept your point about the Russian scare. I think on balance that source your quote can be regarded as RS, although I would prefer if it was sourced to the original research paper or Ross Colliers book we use many less authoritative sources on wiki and I don't see this as any different. Feel free to add it back. I am still dubious about Nepeans fate as the sources which are mostly personal views seem to cast doubt if the remains are that ship or her sister ship Lyndaship (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Since it is not clear what happened, I added the words suggested but I think it is a important part of its history so it should be added. Thanks for your help and suggestions. Changeworld1984 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I accept your point about the Russian scare. I think on balance that source your quote can be regarded as RS, although I would prefer if it was sourced to the original research paper or Ross Colliers book we use many less authoritative sources on wiki and I don't see this as any different. Feel free to add it back. I am still dubious about Nepeans fate as the sources which are mostly personal views seem to cast doubt if the remains are that ship or her sister ship Lyndaship (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't claim that boat was not scrapped, if I implied then I am truly sorry. I wrote in my original edit 'In 1912, it was declared for disposal and was stripped of all its useful fittings at Williamstown before being beached ashore on Swan Island' and then wrote about its resting place. I also quoted Rose author of Australian Colonial Navy on the topic of boat's resting place. In ''Twenty Years of recording iron, steel and steam shipwrecks in Western Australia (Presenting the work of Col Cockram, MAAWA)'', a research paper in which Russian scare as the leading cause was mentioned on page 142 which was cited in the article. I misread the delivery point which I admit as it was referencing SS Darwin port, a ship, but I assumed it to the place Darwin. And I also didn't know about the policy of the ships being refered as she. Thank you for clearing my doubts about the edit. Changeworld1984 (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Skipjack class submarine
Hi, I wanted to get your opinion on something. Back in June 2023 Whoop Whoop Pull Up added a Why? template to this text.
- Unlike the Skates, this new design was maximized for underwater speed by fully streamlining the hull like a blimp. This required a single screw aft of the rudders and stern planes.[why?] Adoption of a single screw was a matter of considerable debate and analysis within the Navy, as two shafts offered redundancy and improved maneuverability.[1] The so-called "body-of-revolution hull" reduced her surface sea-keeping, but was essential for underwater performance.
IMO, "maximized for underwater speed" and "essential for underwater performance" answers the question Why?, unless we go into a major tangent of minute hydrodynamic theory. I want to just delete it. Your thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you but obviously the editor who added the why template felt it was not clear. Therefore you should ask them why they added it. I suspect the wording can be tweaked so it is obvious that changing the design of the sub to a single screw streamlined the hull and maximised underwater speed Lyndaship (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Friedman, pp. 31-35
JWB edits are leaving a stray vertical bar
Hi, I noticed your JWB edits are leaving a stray vertical bar behind: Special:Diff/1208184843. 85.76.13.79 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. They should all be resolved now Lyndaship (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you
Just to say thanks for tidying up the mess left behind by the portal deletions. Such edits often go unappreciated but do make life easier for those who edit the articles in future. Certes (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciated. Rather enjoying doing it! Lyndaship (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed this edit by PrimeBOT. Leaving aside the issue of whether we should be editing old discussions, it looks as if we may have an automated way of unlinking discontinued portals. Certes (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I discovered this just after I had finished clearing Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals manually. Never mind it was an enjoyable week working out why they were in there and I learned about JWB and Regex through doing it. I agree about not changing old discussions point Lyndaship (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed this edit by PrimeBOT. Leaving aside the issue of whether we should be editing old discussions, it looks as if we may have an automated way of unlinking discontinued portals. Certes (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Lyndaship!
- The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
- We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
- Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
- If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Precision and tonnage
You may already know this, but it's pointless to add "|0" to a conversion that already has non-zero digits in the ones place. It doesn't change the precision in the conversion. Also it's a bit misleading to add an edit summary "more precise tonnage conversion" when you've changed the displacement conversion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I discovered this late in the day and ceased adding it enmasse. I still intend to continue to add it displacement tonnage when the tonnage ends in a zero as seeing 1000 long tons (1000 tonnes) is incorrect and confusing. I do not accept that my edit summary is misleading, displacement is a tonnage Lyndaship (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
About Yukikaze's Wiki page
Hello Lyndaship'
I've notice you've made some edits to Yukikaze's Wikipedia page. Since you automatically reverted some changes I in turn made, I'd like to discuss some things I disagree with.
First up, at the very least you could fix a few grammatical errors you made. You forgot to add a space in between "before" and "Yukikaze" during the sentence that discusses her torpedoing USS Laffey, and made a grammar error stating "disengaged from the battle" the sentence after that, writing "and disengaged" or "disengaging" would sound better.
I also disagree with some choices you've made on the information stated in the article. For one, I'd recommend her torpedoing Laffey should be changed to "final blow", or finished off", instead of just stating she sunk Laffey, as it was far from Yukikaze alone that sank Laffey, most notably she had just been hit by a 14-inch (356 mm) shell from Hiei, and insinuating she alone sank Laffey would be false
At the battle of Kolombangara, the article doesn't go into any detail on the extent of damage HMNZS Leander faced, unlike the other damaged/sunk allied warships, just simply stating she was hit. In particular, Leander was damaged so badly, she was not repaired in time to take further part in WW2, making up for the fact that the allied cruisers had just sank the light cruiser Jintsū, the flagship of the battle and the only Japanese warship larger than a destroyer.
I believe the destroyers moored along Yukikaze in the photo of her off Rabaul around the time of the battle of Kolombangara are Hamakaze and Kiyonami, two fellow destroyers from the battle. If you're not going to include that, at least include the month the photo was taken in, July of 1943.
At the battle off Samar, your previous edits removed the fact that Yukikaze saluted the sinking destroyer USS Johnston as a sign of respect for her valiant crew. I don't see the purpose of removing this honorable action taken by Yukikaze and her crew, which shows an insight to the respect many Japanese sailors had for their enemies in stark contrast to captured US pilots being keel hauled aboard Arashi or the massacre of civilians abord Akikaze.
I've already backed up everything I've said with sources in previous edits. If you want to see them again, I'll show you. Good wishes.  Micheal Harrens (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your message.
- I've corrected my two typos and the dating of the photo. If you spot any more like this please feel free to correct them with a stand alone edit.
On Laffey sources disagree on whose torpedo struck her. The information that she was struck by a shell from Hiei beforehand belongs on Laffeys page not here.
On Leander sources again disagree on when her repairs were completed. It's obvious they were not swiftly progressed. The fact that she managed to sail from NZ to the USA for repairs show that they were not total and belies the no further part in the war.
Yukikazes salute of Johnston was added by an editor (Rocky Fargher) who has a similar style to yourself using youtube videos as a source. Subsequently a couple of books have been used. However I can't verify that these books support the claim and I find the claim very dubious. It comes under extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.
Looking at your edits frequently the sources do not verify all the statements made in the prose. Please be more careful. Lyndaship (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you make some very good points. I'd still credit Yukikaze for the torpedo hit on Laffey. The discrepancy on who hit her, at least to my knowledge (feel free to prove me wrong) is that historians in the past wrote books on the battle based mostly on American records without necessarily taking Japanese records into account in little details here and there. For example, Eric Hammel in his 1988 book "Guadalcanal : decision at sea : the naval battle of Guadalcanal, November 13-15, 1942" details that Laffey was engaged by both Teruzuki and Asagumo, and hit by a torpedo from either of the two. As it turns out, Asagumo was off operating alongside Murasame and Samidare, the force which sank USS Monssen and engaged USS Helena (as detailed by Combined Fleet and that Laffey and Monssen were sunk at around the same time, a few minutes past 2:00, meaning Asagumo would have to be at two places at once). A similar problem occurred at the battle off Samar, up until 2014 when naval historian Robert Lundgren published his book "The World Wonder'd; What really happened off Samar", which took both Japanese and American records of the battle to detail the most accurate account of the battle.
- As detailed by author Robert Lundgren on his website Navweaps, Yukikaze, Terizuki, and Amatsukaze operated together (but Amatsukaze broke off from the formation to engage and sink USS Barton, as detailed by her captain Tameichi Hara in his autobiography "Japanese Destroyer Captain"). Combined Fleet, an acclaimed website dedicated to detailing the records of Japanese warships, spearheaded by Jonathan Parshall and assisted by at least nine other naval historians firmly gives Yukikaze credit for the torpedo, and Teruzuki with gunnery hits only on seven vessels (including Laffey).
- I'll still state Yukikaze probably torpedoed Laffey, just to leave in some doubt. I'd still say you make great points with all other points I brought up. Micheal Harrens (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I came across similar discrepancies. You are welcome to change the article to what you believe to be correct if the source is deemed a WP:RS and you cite that source. What you must not do is state something and cite it to a source which does not say that. If RS disagree you should mention it in a footnote. I don't think Navweaps is regarded as a RS, Combinedfleet is used in many articles. I don't think they are quite so clear cut about Yukikaze scoring the torpedo hit and Terikazes page does not specify Laffey! Lyndaship (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lundgren may well be correct, but he can't be considered a reliable source as he has no evidence of publishing anything though peer- or editor-reviewed publications. He published his books himself and Tony diGiuliani of NavWeaps isn't a editor of a peer-reviewed publication.
- I found published sources that said Teruzuki might have torpedoed Laffey so I added that with a caveat to the article. Remember that WP:V is one of our foundations here, using information from acknowledged experts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I came across similar discrepancies. You are welcome to change the article to what you believe to be correct if the source is deemed a WP:RS and you cite that source. What you must not do is state something and cite it to a source which does not say that. If RS disagree you should mention it in a footnote. I don't think Navweaps is regarded as a RS, Combinedfleet is used in many articles. I don't think they are quite so clear cut about Yukikaze scoring the torpedo hit and Terikazes page does not specify Laffey! Lyndaship (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)