User talk:Lyndaship
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023
|
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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (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
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 213, January 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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
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.BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)