Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleAttack on Pearl Harbor is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 23, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 9, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


Misread Japanese name[edit]

Admiral Hara Tadaichi must be Hara Chuichi, as the linked article shows. Please correct.125.0.193.79 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral country?[edit]

How was the US a neutral country after Lend-Lease and the shoot on sight order?

That's the difference between de jure and de facto neutrality. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained reversal of changes to map caption[edit]

Hey, User:Serial Number 54129. Cool to see you're participating. You recently reverted my edit in which I trimmed an unnecessarily large caption with "... uh uh" as your stated reason. It's not immediately clear to me what you mean by that. Can you please explain your reasons for reverting to a caption that is twice as long as the image it's supporting? I think it looks incredibly bad because it actually succeeds in sandwiching text a couple of paragraphs down. Why do you prefer [[w:USS California (BB-44)|USS ''California'']]-style links over {{USS|California|BB-44|6}}-style links? Doesn't it make sense to go for a more clear and concise method of linking? What makes a shortened interwiki link within the same wiki preferable? To me it seems redundant. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Well happy days. I imagine if you'd put something like that in your edit-summary, you might not have been reverted. Unfortunately, summaries such as these (A true work of art: notice its powerful shading of depths at varying intervals. Embark on a spiritual journey as you follow the caption's protusion downwards into the article. Will it ever end?—no one knows. You may pass through an entire section, only to end up in yet another section! Such is the power of this invaluable piece of artisanship. (but yeah i wrecked it for obvious reasons)) also constitute an Unexplained reversal of changes to map caption, and was certainly not clear to me what you mean by that.
Oh, a perusal of your talk shows I'm not the only one to think so. Well, a consensus certainly seems to be forming that "funny" edit-summaries are less than useful.
FWIW, I'd agree that the article needs some serious reorganising, and that with that map particularly the caption duplicated much of the prose, which is unnecessary. But the way around that is to edit the caption—not remove the entire image. As for the sandwiches, again, rearrangemnt and trimming of image cruft will attend to that. ——SerialNumber54129 19:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer that our newer editors spend more time learning and discussing and less time being bold. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: wait, wait, wait. Hold up. Apologies for the dumb edit summary. You're right, it probably wasn't a good idea. Seemed funny when I wrote it, but then again, I am dumbass. But please tell me which image I removed? I looked and searched, but no matter how hard I squint, I am unable to see find image you're referring to. Dumb as my edit summary may have been, trust me when I say that I wouldn't have wasted my time writing it if I hadn't have done exactly that—edit the caption. Did you possibly assume I removed an image due to any type of confusion caused by how the Second wave composition section was no longer flanked by that huge caption that accompanied up until that point? Honestly looking forward to your response. Take care. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see a removed image, but the map is marked with letters, & deleting the definitions was a bad call. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Which definitions would that be? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 06:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Jay D. Easy, apologies for waiting so long to reply; somehow, I overlooked your question. Take a look at the diff before yours. You'll see there are buildings marked on the map with letters, & what they are is in the caption; you removed those descriptions (or definitions, or explanations). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Trekphiler: no worries! I'd forgotten all about it, too. I understand which definitions you're referring to. My reason for excluding them is because I felt the caption was already hugely cluttered as it was. Basically what we're looking at is a thumbnail that is already too large, but also descriptive enough by and of itself such that it didn't require an overly detailed caption. What seemed most irrelevant, distracting, and illegible to me at the time was the indication of every three feet of depth (though I noticed it's omitted again in its current form). The buildings marked with letters I deemed excessive too, in that they detracted from the map's intended use: indicate attacked targets. However, in hindsight I understand how it may be confusing to have a map with objects marked by letters that aren't elaborated upon.

Long story short: assuming the map's intended use is to indicate which targets were attacked, I removed everything from the caption that I felt was a distraction to this end. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 12:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)