Talk:Battery Harris

@Wgolf:, why is this marked as a -double- stub? Anmccaff (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

didn't see the stub tag-sorry! Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. That was damn fast. @Wgolf:, whaddaya think it needs to be less stubby? i.e. an approximate target size and appearance? Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information and claims made without evidence

This page has lots of unsourced information and claims made without evidence.

In order to better serve our WP:Readers first, please add in-line citations for the following unreferenced claims:

It was directly serviced to the magazines at each casemate by the Fort Tilden Military Railroad, the tracks making a cross through the lateral corridor behind the gun.
This had evolved from its initial design as one of the first dispersed batteries; the two unprotected guns were spaced at 850 feet, about twice the 420 feet of earlier batteries.
The weakness of these installations to counter-battery and aerial attack was noted from the first.
When eventually casemated in 1940, the distance between the guns made it impractical to use a separate shared magazine.

Please add in-line citations for this unsourced info.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot cite another wiki for a source

First cite is to another wiki. [1]

Cannot cite another wiki as a source.

Per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:NOTSOURCE.

Please remove it.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, neither of these apply. They are intended to prevent use of Wikipedia itself as a source, and the cite is unrelated to Wikipedia. Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, user is totally wrong. Both apply. Both explain that another wiki that anyone can edit is NOT an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Please remove it, now. Sagecandor (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed to death on the RSN, this is not a source that anyone can edit; leaving this comment here suggests that you are moving from simple falsehood to outright lying. Strike the error. Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed to death on the RSN, user is wrong about the source. Per astute analysis by GoneIn60 in comment: It's a private Wiki, but it's still a Wiki in which anyone that has access to the site can edit within. Getting access is not that hard. You simply send the site's creator, John Stanton, an email, and in his words he'll "fix you up". DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The RSN discussion isn't even 48 hours old, so I suggest giving it a bit more time before demanding any changes at this article. While it is clear that the consensus there is overwhelmingly against citing FortWiki, it's probably too early to call it closed. I don't doubt that eventually, the thread's activity will die down and we can proceed with removing the FortWiki source (unless by some miracle, consensus changes at the RSN). --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoneIn60:Thank you for acknowledging that "it is clear that the consensus there is overwhelmingly against citing FortWiki". Sagecandor (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's probably too early to call it closed Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge with Fort Tilden

I propose that this article be merged into Fort Tilden. Any discussion is welcome. RobDuch (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]