User talk:Lyndaship

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Britannic-class ocean liner

Hi I see you nominated Abyssinia-class ocean liner for deletion and I’ve recently put this other article by the same creator up for deletion. It sounds like you have access to specialist sources and I may be wrong in thinking the class didn’t exist. If you can find anything one way or the other it would be great if you could add a comment or !vote. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I did check and came up with one non RS refering to them as a class and now another editor has found the contemporary article in the shipbuilder so although I think it unlikely that they were generally known as the Britannic class (class of two ships? more likely just to say sister ship) I can't totally rule it out. As always when someone makes a dubious claim its very difficult to refute it as references say what they were known as not what they were not Lyndaship (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In my view this comes nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. An isolated occurrence of "Britannic class" is just a reasonable normal use of ordinary English, especially for a journalist (and in the example found, the structure of the sentence would make the use of "sister-ship" awkward). I am surprised that it has not occurred more often. Davidships (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of ship captains

Hello, I notice that you have been removing the names of ship captains from DANFS articles. Was there a discussion about this somewhere? Because I'm inclined to think the names should stay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep its in the archives Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_56 and solidified at WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Looking at asubsequent discussion Sponsors should go too from the infobox Lyndaship (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Judi

Hi Lyndaship, please see diff [1]. I don't know if this is random chance, or they are watching us and provoking. It's another gambling site with different key terms. Can you do your magic to find new domains? The page title is Keluaran HK – Data HK, Live Draw HK, Pengeluaran HK-- GreenC 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Happily. I think I have already done a search on most of these search terms, I have five more domains to add at present (1 is large) Lyndaship (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ok those key phrases found no more. I've added the 5 I found previously to WP:JUDI. I noticed that diff this morning, certainly strange Lyndaship (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts on so called Mizar class United Fruit Co. ships

Regarding the flag on Talamanca I think it needs to be somewhere but am inclined not to do a new box repeating stuff just to get a flag image in the infobox. That did resurrect thoughts of some months ago. For some time I've thought that group of ships should go through a DANFS de-emphasis and the apparently made-up "Mizar class" eliminated in favor of the actual class meeting the definition of a series of ships built to the same design for a navy or company. That would be the documented use of "Mail class" for the group by United Fruit. With the exception of advertising I expect they made practical use of that as do naval services as a useful "bin" for maintenance, supply, crewing and such. New equipment? Send to the class where it fits. Those ships spent most of their years as civilian. The only reason there is so much on the military use is the Navy's obsession with documenting each voyage — something making sense for combatants where deployments may have significant action but far less for essentially cargo runs that were no more dangerous or "exciting" than just about every other ship at sea excepting neutrals in those days. The ships were significant in the pre-WW II period as a new, larger passenger capacity and amenity type for a very large fleet serving Central and South America. Some of those voyages had "incidents" or "famous persons" more worthy of mention than some of the stuff in their DANFS voyages but digging them out in equal quantity would take months in news and other archives. What is lost is the flavor of a new, "romance" of sailing to Latin America on new ships of the "Great White Fleet" (Other fleets were encouraging the same trade — a predecessor of today's cruising). That is captured in advertising and travel magazines. In my opinion that is more important to maritime history than the many word about routine in DANFS. That period was the last bloom of "liners" and a burst of interest in Latin America in the U.S. that was reflected in literature and movies of the time as well.

Reorienting those ships and creation of a new "Mail class" article focused on construction history and specifications (deleting most of that from the individual articles), capturing the ship's importance in the culture of the time and distilling the DANFS "voyage, voyage, voyage" recitations and moving the articles to the ship's long service names is a large effort. Too large to waste time with to only get into endless controversies here. You've been "de-DANFSing" commanding officers and cleaning out some of the pedantic DANFS language so the question here. Or is my dislike for seeing ships with significant maritime history and impact just "Navy something" here because it is easy to grab lots of PD words getting away with me? Palmeira (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

While I share your feeling that too frequently the civilian history of military ships is overlooked if the majority of the article is about their military service (albeit a straight cut and paste from DANFs) it's hard to justify retitling the article. Like you I don't have the time (or enthusiasm) for digging through sources to balance the narrative. Sorry Lyndaship (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I get into a complete redo for individual vessels occasionally where the imbalance is glaring or the DANFS focus is downright misleading or even flat wrong. The most recent was Charmian II which was based on two very short, separate Navy paragraphs when there was at least a bit elsewhere (SPs are a target rich environment for that). It is the six United Fruit ships that is daunting because I think they should be handled as a block if done. That is why it was and I suppose will remain way back burner. Perhaps if we are snowed in a week . . . or two. Palmeira (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS

Very surprised that you've removed the names of the Master and Mate of the Sea Park (ship). The guideline says they can be included if they "were significant to the ship's history (i.e. playing a substantial role in a major event involving the ship) and are named in reliable sources". They were in charge when the ship foundered in the South Atlantic and the crew took to the boats. Is that not a "major event in the ship's history" in your view. And both are repeatedly named in newspaper reports, in Liverpool and elsewhere. Kahuzi (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kahuzi: This should be on the article talk page, not here, but fwiw I completely agree with Lyndaship's edit. Considering the line she removed simply stated that "the master was Captain W Bell and mate was James Leslie", there was nothing there about how they may have "significantly contributed to the ship's history" other than having those positions. Every ship has a master and a mate. This is why it is better to focus on the ship rather than the crew. (IMHO) - wolf 23:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

No dispute that the sinking is a major event in the ships history but just because someone was the Captain and someone else a crew member at the time does not warrant them a mention by name. Furthermore your edit just added their names without any context, basically name checking or padding of no interest to a general reader. If you add some sourced expansion detailing how these individuals made a difference to what happened to the ship I'll leave it be even if I don't feel it really meets SHIPSNOTCREWS. Fair enough? Lyndaship (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

SHIPSNOTCREWS is overkill IMO. It was introduced to overcome a specific issue, which was the listing of large numbers of ships' captains on certain warships, of which there can be many. Mentions of captains should not be eliminated just because they are not "independently notable", that is just too high a bar, if there's something interesting to say about them, then there's no reason they shouldn't be mentioned, provided of course that the mention is not WP:UNDUE. Indeed when I think about it, UNDUE itself ought probably be sufficient to prevent the pointless listing of captains in ship articles anyway. I'm not arguing, mind that this particular mention should be retained because I haven't looked at the article, I'm just expressing a general principle. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a discussion at WT:SHIPS to review it if you so wish. I would point out that if there is something interesting to say about an individual beyond that he was the Captain once upon a time then there's no objection to mentioning it in the article but what we have is stuff copied from Danfs and name checking by descendants of no interest to the general reader - who cares if Capt Pugwash commissioned the ship other than little Pugwashs? Lyndaship (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, but IMO the name of the first captain of a warship at least should be left in the DANFS articles, because as somebody pointed out a while back, it's actually quite a big deal to get the first commission on a new ship. I'm also generally of the opinion that we should not include less information than is given at DANFS, because if the navy thought the info was notable, it should be good enough for us too. We should if anything include more info IMO.

And yes, I know I should open a discussion at SHIPS if I want the guideline changed, but I'm afraid I just don't have time to tilt at every available windmill these days, so I'm just having a quiet gripe about it here instead. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Presumably if it was they would all be Admirals and not Lieutenants (Junior grade). Secondly DANFS is obviously formulaic always giving who commissioned the ship but never mentioning who succeeded him even if he was booted off the following day for entertaining Seaman Stains in the heads. I know just what you mean about not having the time or energy to try and change some policy or guidance on wiki and although I am honoured that you feel mentioning your concerns on my talk page is worthwhile sadly the Wikierati won't care Lyndaship (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ship links

Thanks for all your reccent work on the Mediterranean articles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sirocco

You might want to look again at this ship, she was launched in 39.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes as "Le Corsaire" and didn't become Siroco until 1941 therefore dab by first year of name Lyndaship (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the guidelines again I see that you are right. So although I think the guidelines are flawed I've reverted my move Lyndaship (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All Curtatone class destroyers redirect to class page

Hello! I noticed you have added a redirect on the articles for Italian destroyers Calatafimi, Castelfidardo, Curtatone, and Monzambano which leads to the Curtatone class article. I wanted to remove the redirects as it breaks the Curtatone class's template since each ship link leads to the same page as the class link. In the meantime, I will create a draft for each ship once I get the time. I wanted to ask if you had a specific reason for this besides having a relevant-ish link instead of a red one. Thanks! GGOTCC (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If no article for the individual ship exists then a link to the class page is appropriate, if you create the individual ship articles then the redirects will be overwritten and everything is already linked and will slot into place Lyndaship (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Lyndaship! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Cite which creates a download, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to USS Buck (DD-420)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at USS Buck (DD-420). Aroha Parish (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to HMCS Prince Robert

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at HMCS Prince Robert. Aroha Parish (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)