Talk:On Patrol

I had never even heard of the artist "Sun Araw" before, and since "On Patrol" is the name of an album rather than the artist, I don't think a generic term like "On Patrol" should redirect there, therefore I believe a disambiguation page with a link to Sun Araw is appropriate, also user:John B123, I don't see why I must be the one to open the discussion by explaining myself instead of the person who reverted my, in my opinion, quite reasonable edit that in fact ADDED to Wikipedia, on the contrary the person reverting an edit like that should be the one to explain themselves. Ape89 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ape89: As I indicated in my edit summary, please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. "Still on patrol" may well mean lost at sea in the US Navy, but the article is on patrol, not still on patrol. ('On patrol' in the Royal navy means 'at sea') --John B123 (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.", I did, perhaps YOU should read it yourself, namely the following parts:

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes",

"BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.",

"If you tell someone to follow BRD when you revert their edits, then you need to follow BRD yourself, which means joining the discussion and explaining your substantive reasons for rejecting their edits."

Also, we WERE discussing the matter, just not on this page but the other party's talk page (BRD doesn't specify where the discussion is to take place), your essentially forced me to break the rule of not spreading a discussion to multiple talk pages. Ape89 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Also,@John B123:, let's say someone comes across the term about US Navy submarines, but the version they hear is "on patrol" & they type that into the search box & the result they get is an obscure artist who just happens to have an album named "On Patrol", I'm not even convinced Sun Araw is the only artist with a song and/or an album named "On Patrol", why should the term redirect to HIS page instead of leading to a disambiguation page?Ape89 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If there are more albums under that title, it would strengthen the case for a dab page (which could always go at On Patrol (disambiguation) pending a decision about the primary topic), but I didn't find anything. Some searches outside WP found at least three albums title "On Patrol", but none of the artists appear to have articles in Wikipedia. There is also a band by that name, but even more obscure. Lithopsian (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, your problem with my edit is that it was on the page "On Patrol" instead of "On Patrol (disambiguation)"? How about you voice things like that FROM THE BEGINNING? None of this would have happened had you just said something, but no, reverting without explanation is obviously teh more reasonable thing to do...Ape89 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to continue the edit war, but it will only end in tears. Now that you've been dragged kicking and screaming to this talk page, perhaps offer some reason beyond you not being a Sun Araw fan? Adding words to Wikipedia is not the same as improving Wikipedia. Two editors have expressed doubts that your edits amount to an improvement, that is plenty reason to stop and think some more instead of knee-jerk reverting. Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Uhh, neither one of you expressed ANY doubts, you both just reverted my edits and told me to go read a page, which neither one of you followed yourself mind you, people here have gotten angry at me for discussing "in the wrong manner", "in the wrong place" etc. so I am reluctant to subject myself to more of the same & figured I'd let you start (see "If you tell someone to follow BRD when you revert their edits, then you need to follow BRD yourself, which means joining the discussion and explaining your substantive reasons for rejecting their edits." above), you two told me to discuss, so why won't you do so? Ape89 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And this article's title is capitalised: "On Patrol", which has a distinct connotation within Wikipedia. Why is there no redirect for "still on patrol", apparently the term actually in use (see also Dundee International Submarine Memorial). Or "on patrol" (lower case), for that matter, if this term is really in widespread use. My own cursory searches don't find it other than as part of "still on patrol". Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Why is there no redirect for "still on patrol"", gee, let's think for a moment, two people have reverted my edits telling me to go read a page, telling me to do things said two people themselves refuse to do; explain their reasoning, if creating ONE redirect is such a crime here that it MUST be reverted without a reason give, why should I expect to be allowed to make THREE redirects?Ape89 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ape89: I have a good knowledge of WP:BRD, please do not cherry-pick from it to try and justify your actions. Perhaps the most relevant part of it is: If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version, which is Wikipedia:Edit warring.

If you tell someone to follow BRD when you revert their edits, then you need to follow BRD yourself, which means joining the discussion and explaining your substantive reasons for rejecting their edits - What do you think my comments above were if not joining in the discussion? --John B123 (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@John B123:about your latest revert, Lithopsian suggested creating the page On Patrol (disambiguation) & redirecting On Patrol there, so I figured that would be an acceptable compromise, now trying to compromise is "edit warring"?

As for "participating in discussion", both of you reverted my edit without discussing first when the way I understand that page, it should be the one DOING the reverting that explains their reasoning first. Ape89 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@John B123if you want to discuss as you claim, why aren't you actually discussing instead of accusing me of "justifying my actions" and "edit warring"? I'm sure a little less reverting, reporting and marking for deletion & little more TALKING wouldn't hurt.Ape89 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ape89: Please reread Lithopsian comment about creating a dab page, it starts with If there are more albums under that title..... If you look at the edit summaries on the history page, Lithopsian gave his objections to your changes when reverting. To reiterate and expand my earlier comments, still on patrol is not the same thing as on patrol. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, definition of terms/alternative meanings belong on wiktionary not WP. All that aside, your claim of the meaning is unreferenced. --John B123 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

about Lithopsian's objections;

references: not everything warrants a cited source, while in this case WP:BLUE probably can't be applied, the fact remains that some things are "widely known" without being fixed in place in a literary source, for example a passing reference to such a thing by a researcher in a documentary is difficult to cite as a source in a Wikipedia article.

change of meaning: the original meaning is/was included in the edit as well as an alternative meaning, I'm not sure how additional information supposedly erases the original.

original research: now, HERE I think we can apply WP:BLUE

as for "on patrol" vs. "still on patrol", do YOU have a source stating that the US Navy always includes the word "still" when referring to lost submarines, because I find that hard to believe, I see and hear "on patrol" more than "still on patrol" in the media I consume, but they aren't primary sources & even if they were, they tend to be TV programmes etc. so citing them as sources is not very practical. Maybe you are right, maybe this matter does belong in Wiktionary instead, but how many people actually go there instead of coming to Wikipedia? There are a lot of articles with "X redirects here, for those looking for Y there's [another article/Wiktionary entry] (here)" or something to that effect at the top of the article, I would do that if I knew how. Ape89 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

l'd dispute still on patrol is "widely known" enough not to need a reference. A google search for the term only seems to find social media use, other sources seem to use on eternal patrol. There are many updates from the US Navy that use the term on patrol, not for lost ships, but for ship deployed to a specific area. --John B123 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this discussion between the three of us isn't going to resolve anything, in a forum which nobody else is likely to stumble upon. Therefore I suggest a different route. You could just take it to WP:RFD: it's a redirect and it needs wider discussion, but it might not be the best avenue given that there is a clear desire for it to be either a dab page or not, and certainly no intention to delete it. I *would* have suggested that creating On Patrol (disambiguation) and then opening a move discussion might focus minds on that decision, but that page got speedily deleted. I don't know the exact reason, but two-dab pages are generally pointless, so maybe that was the only reason. We could ask the admin to reinstate it with the specific intention of opening a discussion about it. There are other dispute-resolution methods available, for example requests for comment, but they tend to end up being a bit vague whereas we have a very specific split decision here. Or fresh minds may come up with solutions not yet considered. You might also come at this more obliquely. I have created a redirect at still on patrol, but you might also consider creating on patrol and then starting discussion from there. As I mentioned elsewhere, there is often a strong desire to merge titles differing only in capitalisation; if not, then at least there will be a wider consensus not to. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'll risk it and create on patrol & maybe add a hat note to Sun Araw just in case someone does the same as me & does a search for "On Patrol" when looking for "still on patrol", hopefully this is acceptable to @John B123? Ape89 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that 'on patrol' has a much broader meaning both within the military and outside the military as well being a shortened form of 'still on patrol'. Possibly 'on patrol' should redirect to a Patrol with a new section 'Still on patrol' added? --John B123 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)