Talk:USS Monitor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Definite article in ship names[edit]

I see that someone went through a couple years ago and added definite article to all ship names, in the interest of consistency. Unfortunately this clashes with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). I fixed the first sentence of the lead but refrained from fixing the rest (just the ones with USS or CSS prefixes) pending discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cost conversion to 2018 dollars reverted[edit]

Hello.

In the field at the top of the article, I added a conversion to 2018 dollars: Ship original cost=$275,000 ($7.35 million in 2018 dollars) This was reverted by Sturmvogel, who says "Currency converters do not work well with capital costs". Sturmvogel has provided no information on why this is the case. I will add the currency again and invite him to discuss on this page.Newzild (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

When you add something and get reverted, the polite thing to do is discuss it on the talk page. Adding it back in before the discussion even starts is aggressive and confrontational.
You did not give a source for your conversion. Where did you arrive at this? If you've used the Consumer Price Index, Sturmvogel is quite correct in reverting you.
And giving a fixed end date is unhelpful. When I come back in 2028 and read this article, that number will be useless to me. We normally use Template:Inflation to get the most up-to-date conversion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Inflation converters use the cost of living to derive their figure, but warship costs have far exceeded that number. The battleship HMS Barham (04), built a century ago, cost about 2.5 million pounds. The latest British Type 26 frigate, a ship about a quarter the size of the battleship, costs 8 billion pounds for 8 ships, once R&D is factored in. So run your converter again based on 2.5 million from 1913 and see how many tens of millions of pounds it yields, compared to the billion actually being spent.
Also, do some digging, there have been plenty of other discussions on Wiki invalidating inflation calculators for capital costs that have nothing to do with changes in the cost of living.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The inflation conversion is misleading at best even in dealing with items affected by COLAs. It doesn't (can't) take account of cost changes that have varied at rates other than the nominal COLA. IMO, it shouldn't be used at all. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Just to use some examples from my own experience from when I was a kid in the late '70s, paperback books in the US have increased by about a factor of 6 or so, but gasoline has merely doubled. And I have no idea what those ratios are for those in the UK, Germany or Zimbabwe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
♠I was thinking of the U.S. auto industry in particular. Prices in the '80s were artificially inflated as a result of the "voluntary import quotas". There's also changes in wage/pay structure that complicate things even further, so even using the number of weeks/months' wages (which I would have favored) isn't truly accurate, either. And when this is all true, using a script seems like a really bad idea.
♠FYI, if anybody cares, this issue's also been raised (by me...) here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:27 & 16:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Prudently[edit]

@Askedonty: I don't have access to the cited sources. Do they actually use the word "prudently"? Can you provide a quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, User:Kendall-K1. This passage is not a quote. We're trying to make sense here, not blindly to follow sources verbatim, which can lead near to copyright infringement sometimes. --Askedonty (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
So is that your own opinion or that of one of the two authors? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, quote or no quote, you need to source the claim of prudence; as it is, it's mssquerading under the cited source, which makes it looks like it's actually cited, when it appears, in fact, not to be. That's not kosher. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The claim is repeated by the inventor of the gun himself just the sentence after. I reckon the word "prudently" is not a very good choice but without an indicator or hint related to "reduced charge" the sentence sounds like the tables for the gun were established, the point precisely behind being that they were not. --Askedonty (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"Prudently" is not really an encyclopedic term as it is, to a degree, a value judgment of the action. It's like saying "wisely" - or in this case "cautiously" which would be a better word to use. "Prudent" is a praise in English vs. a neutral description. I think even "cautiously" is not necessary unless the sources said as much; the reader can draw their own conclusions about that from what is said. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Reading a bit more carefully, IMO we may be arguing over nothing. Dahlgren used the charge he did out of ignorance of what amount was actually needed to really damage Virginia, & therefore couldn't recommend using more, because he had no way to know if what was needed was within the gun's design limits: that defines prudence. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
1) what were the charges reduced from? 2) I think an action being "prudent" has a more subjective implication than it being "cautious". It's generally used as a form of praise, i.e. that it was wise or well-thought-out. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I started a discussion of this at WP:NPOV/N. I think this is straight out of WP:EDITORIALIZING. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said above I would not be satisfied with that word myself, and it's not about editorializing or not. I'm not satisfied with the sentence since the introduction of a sharp "because" in place of a much less assertive expression https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Monitor&diff=852462002&oldid=851085070. As Trekphiler explains Dahlgren does not know what is needed to damage Virginia. All right. But it is a paradox, or it is curious, or it's circumstancial to the haste caused by the war situation, that he does not set an upper limit. It's even dubious in a way. Therefore I do not see a reason for the text to become so sharply assertive as it is becoming. --Askedonty (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"Because" means exactly "due to the fact that". —DIYeditor (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Just like "no way" means exactly "nuts". --Askedonty (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I take it English is not your native language? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly. It would be without any implication concerning what's worth my precedent reply. --Askedonty (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This latest reply is not even in comprehensible English. Like I said, you are confused about the definition of "because", and I would gather other words. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You might as well use your impression to deduce by yourself that language is not a mere nuance-less Lego. My point never was imposing "prudentle". Ericsson was no native either. A difference between prudence and caution is that the former is more about caring for oneself. End of transmission. --Askedonty (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have access to the sources? If we knew what they said I think it would make this discussion go a lot more smoothly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

♠"what were the charges reduced from?" In a military context, that has a particular meaning; I'd say it makes little difference to the average reader, so long as the understanding of "lesser" is maintained.
♠"I think an action being "prudent" has a more subjective implication" I'd agree, & that makes the comment editorializing, which we should be discouraging. As noted, whatever we may think, no editorial comment on Dahlgren's decision is necessary: that facts do speak for themselves, here.
♠"he does not set an upper limit" I read that to mean Dahlgren isn't willing to risk blowing up the gun (which has happened to Ericsson & wasn't unusual in this era) if it won't actually have the desired (or any worthwhile) effect on Virginia, & refusing I'd call prudent: I don't think it needs us to tell the reader that. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I had taken your calling it prudent to mean you supported the use of the term in the article. I do not agree that it makes no difference to the average reader what the charge was reduced in relation to, but I asked because it seemed important in deciding whether this was "prudent" or not. As in why wouldn't he use a full charge at least? Because that would be imprudent? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The proper amount for the propellant charge hadn't even been determined yet by Dahlgren for the 11-inch guns and the Monitor used half the amount used later in the war. Personally, I'd not use "prudent" as that's really editorializing, IMO, unless a source says that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
♠"I had taken your calling it prudent to mean you supported the use of the term" That's evidently not what I initially wrote, so IDK... The text, as it stands, is IMO enough to support a conclusion Dahlgran made the right call. What more do we need?
♠"The proper amount" I would suggest "the maximum amount", which is what I was getting at: he didn't know if a charge approaching what it would take to blow the gun sky high would be required to actually do measurable damage to Virginia, & testing it in action seemed pretty stupid. I'd agree with that assessment; the text supports it.
♠In light of this, tho, it seems some additional information on what Dahlgren was fretting over, & why, might be in order. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)