User talk:Epipelagic
For your great work
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| In recognition of your excellent work on New Zealand military history articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
Early naval vessels of New Zealand
|
On 25 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Early naval vessels of New Zealand, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for Early naval vessels of New Zealand, it's really well done. Quale (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I responded to you harshly in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I meant to simply convey that you are more than welcome to improve the article(s) you feel need it, but in ignoring the rest of your question I sounded like I was shrugging you off. It was not my intent to do that. I was in a hurry to use a template response and didn't realize how sharp it sounded. I apologize, and thanks for your contributions to WikiPedia. Zab (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sandbox and thermal weapons
I spotted your sandbox on the "what links here" for Early thermal weapons, so I admit to random curiosity (I was quite excited to see someone had noticed, and benefitted from my recent work). Anyway, apologies for working in your sandbox, but I thought I'd plug in those refs and sort out the invalid tag for you; I know what it's like to borrow refs and then not remember later where they came from. Also, came across this picture which is no good for me, but might be of interest for you. All the best for your work; it looks good. I've a few books which might be of interest, see my library. Let me know if you want me to source anything else. Apologies again for being nosy! Gwinva (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Early Naval sources
I use Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8., generally regarded as the definitive record of the Royal Navy, as a starting point. There's also Ben Warlow's shore establishments, which I use to supplement that at times. Lavery's Ship of the Line is good for a more detailed study of the early navy, as are David Gardiner and Rif Winfield's works. For more recent naval history, Janes is usually very good as well. For the ship disambiguation pages like HMS Sparrow its mostly Colledge. Hope this helps. Benea (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Navy ship lists
Answered on my page. Ingolfson (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
|
This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us. |
Ship disambiguation
Yes I'd noticed you'd filled in a few more, so thanks very much for that. As to the style used on HMS Halcyon, I assume you specifically mean the way it says 'The first Halcyon was...', 'The second Halcyon was...'. I think we had a discussion a while back now (it'll be in the archives somewhere though) where we looked at different styles and options. Doing it the way as demonstrated on HMS Halcyon was a bit problematic, because often the original editors didn't have the full details, so months and years down the line other editors have to insert extra ships here and there. With Colledge that problem is alleviated somewhat but it was still thought to be better because you often find instances where a ship is described as HMS so-and-so but is not in Colledge, because she was never formally commissioned, (see HMS Foylebank and HMS Royal Ulsterman for two recent examples). Another example is the hundreds of small craft like rescue tugs, minesweeping trawlers etc which again aren't true HMSes but it makes sense to describe them as such on here. I think that's why a basic bullet point HMS Halcyon was a ... approach was adopted.
You're definitely right to say that getting a standardised style would be good though. I tend to follow Colledge quite closely, putting in ship type and class, year of launch and year of departure from service, and any significant details like a change of name, a rebuild, a reduction to the reserve, etc. In otherwords, exactly as you've been doing them so far. This pretty much follows the guidelines here, except I don't put the disambiguation information in the link, as I think it's somewhat redundant and even potentially a little misleading. The disambiguation pages like HMS Halcyon are probably old outdated ones that haven't been overhauled in a long time, so feel free to amend them to look like the ones you've been creating already. I do odd ones I come across, so eventually we ought to meet in the middle and they'll all be standardised. If you're ok with the style you're using I'd say carry on, unless there's specific things you want to address? I think I've rambled a bit, so I hope that was of some help. Give me a bell if not. Pip pip! Benea (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Misc. ship lists of the Royal New Zealand Navy
Hello, Geronimo20. In doing some assessments on several articles you've created, I'd like to make a suggestion. You've got several stub articles about a specific type of ship in the RNZN, such as Survey ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy and Logistic ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy. I think it would be much better to merge the articles into something similar to List of German Navy ships, for example. It would make more sense to have everything together on one page, where it could be eventually worked into a featured list. Anyways, feel free to disagree with me, just thought I'd make a suggestion. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Parsecboy and thanks for your comment. The list you suggested already exists. What I have in mind for what you call "misc. ship lists" is, not for them to remain as lists, but to develop the history and story of the roles the boats played. For example the boats in Logistic ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy had some historical involvement in Antarctic research. At the moment it's just a stub so I could get the navigational panel on the right operating. Perhaps it's overkill! :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, I see what you intend for the articles. Sounds good to me. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Scharnhorst
I apologize for zealously stepping into a drawn out wiki war =) over the ships classes. This is an argument that nether side will budge on, nothing I can post or say can change that, but in naval classification and in historical publications these ships are classified as battlecrusers. Due to their speed, armor and armament. I will no longer attempt to change this page (in respect to its class). Sonar610 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Exmouth
My mistake. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
RE: Adding whitespace with Advisor.js
It actually removes trailing whitespaces, not add them. --EoL talk 23:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Fish product sales, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Before you go telling someone off, you really need to follow WP:AGF. Also if the article does not meet WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS, as your article did not, it can be deleted. The number of links does not determine if an article is deleted or not. If there are a large number of links, it merely indicates that if a notable article can be created it is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
New fishing template
Good work on the new template "fishing other topics." I'm just letting you know that I changed the link for cormorants to Cormorant#Cormorant_fishing and am removing the template from Cormorant Fishing on the Nagara River. It's better to keep the links to general articles. Douggers (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
McClane ref
Hi. Sorry, I didn't realize that I removed this reference. Perhaps it was when I was reverting vandalism? It sounds like it should be there, so please replace it. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see - I was looking at the fishing article, not angling. I removed it because it was under References and I think it was keeping other refs from displaying properly. That =reference= {reflist} thingee list is generated by references embedded in the text. The book you put in should be in See Also or some catagory or subhead that can be added to like any other section or things get weird. I recall it took me a while to figure out what should be displaying under References and where other links had gone. The References were under Notes, so I just tried to get things organized the way they should be. I think your book should go under "See also" and everything now in See also should be in the EL template at the bottom of the page. Please add your book and deal with those other links if you're up to it. It looks like most of them are already linked in template. Bob98133 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that most of your additions belong to the fishing vessel article. Please move the corresponding text there. `'Míkka>t 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fishing vessel catches fish. Fish processing vessel is a fish factory in the sea (factory ship), which processes caught fish delivered by fishing vessels. Of course, the boundary is gray. You may mention that fishing vessels do fish processing to a various degree as well. `'Míkka>t 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so touchy. I am not giving you any orders. My only interest was to write a several stubs to cover totally missed wide topic. Since you say that both types of ships heavily overlap, another suggestion is to redirect Fish processing vessel to Fishing vessel (so I am redy to give up any and all rights to this page). `'Míkka>t 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|
On 19 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fish processing vessel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Infobox Class - Infobox Ship Class
Hi - {{Infobox Class}} and {{Infobox Ship Class}} are deprecated and will soon be nominated for deletion. I notice that you are using these templates in your user space and wanted to inform you that they will no longer function once the templates are deleted. They have been replaced by using {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. Thanks :) --Brad (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
|
On 19 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scallop dredge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Welcome templates
Could you point an example of the mess up? I've checking now, but I don't see the sig removals. Thanks. MBisanz talk 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
McClane ref
Hi - wasn't me the last time. Sorry about reverting it before - I see there doesn't seem to be an ISBN but instead an ASIN number - maybe the Wiki instructions show how to link with that number. It's fine with me if you put it back up, either with the ABIN# or maybe a note [no ISBN], but also according to Wiki rules you're supposed to have actually reviewed the material before listing it as an EL, so maybe you want to wait until you see the book.Bob98133 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Fishing
Oh right, sorry, I'm sure I looked at the page history and I created it and never populated it ages ago, but I must have confused it with another tab I had open. themcman1 talk 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, why did you revert my edits to Template:Fishing topics. It, in my opinion, looks more professional with capitalization. (Dunno if I spelt that right) themcman1 talk 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Category: Fishing communities
I added the category to two articles (Portland, Maine and Peterhead). Which of those aren't fishing-centric? - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly bothered, to be honest – I just wanted to state the rationale for my apparent spate of HotCat additions. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
WPFISHING
Hey, I noticed your edit at {{WPFISHING}}, are you trying to add the nesting function, or do something else? If you need any help with functionality of the template, let me know and I'll fix it up. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, give me some time and I'll see what I can do. I may do some code overhaul too, but at the very least, I'll use my pre-existing {{WikiProject Tennessee}} and a template so everything will work fine off the bat. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- In all the pages I test-checked, it wasn't showing up. Are you seeing the problem on a certain article? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, yes, that is actually from {{WikiProject Yorkshire}}, which I'm working on right now :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why you removed the category "fishers" from his article? Since, as stated in the article, he co-founded the magazines Angling Times and Trout and Salmon, and wrote a book called Reflections on a River, I would have thought that he qualified as someone with more than a casual interest in angling. Thanks. JH (talk page) 09:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for reinstating the category. The information about the angling magazines comes from page 46 of the Christopher Martin-Jenkins book which is one of the article's references, and it's possible that it isn't to be found anywhere online. His authorship of the "Reflections on a River" book I think comes from a search on Amazon. JH (talk page) 09:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: your help desk idea
I thought your script idea seemed like an interesting idea, so I threw together a little python script to do the dirty work... When I ran it on research vessel, I got this list. If you set up WP:EMAIL, I can send it to you 
— Ksero (talk | contribs) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)