User talk:Archimedean

Image tagging for File:Hugh Rodman 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Hugh Rodman 2.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Superheroine"

Hi Archimedean! Thanks for your participation on this topic. I reviewed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Superheroine and there doesn't seem be a consensus for the style guide that you cited in your reversions. While the Ip poster has noted that according to Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language, certain words can be considered uncommon, no clear statement is given for the consideration of the terms "heroine" or "superheroine." The statement lacks an objective measure of commonness and uncommonness. Therefore, I'm going to revert the changes to their original status until a consensus is reached. Feel free to talk it out with me on my talk page or over there on WikiProject talk.Luminum (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship classes

Hello; can you explain the idea behind creating ship classes that only redirect to others such as United States-class frigate? There never were any United States class ships. Ships of that era were never built from classes. --Brad (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps unusually for their time, the first six vessels of the US Navy were built to two class plans (and a third plan based on one of the class plans, but significantly different). These classes were not given names at the time, but tradition has led several reputable scholars to designated the three classes as United States-class frigate, Constellation-class frigate, and Chesapeake-class frigate. These designations can be found in a number of sources, including Spencer Tucker's Stephen Decatur: A Life Most Bold And Daring, and Paul H. Silverstone's The Sailing Navy, 1775-1854, both published by the US Naval Institute Press.

The classes should probably have separate page listings, but I was concerned about breaking up the article Original six frigates of the United States Navy. Perhaps separate articles could be established for each class (save Chesapeake, which should redirect to the ship, in the style of the Enterprise-class aircraft carrier) without detracting from the primary page for the six ships.--Archimedean (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all of the books I used as references for USS Constitution (and yes I've read them all see the bibliography) and additionally Chapelle, Howard Irving (1949). The History of the American Sailing Navy; the Ships and Their Development. New York: Norton. OCLC 1471717. there is no reference to a named set of classes for these ships. The 1794 Naval Act called for 44-gun and 36-gun (later reclassed to 38's) frigates. Your Tucker book was written about Stephen Decatur; not about ships. Silverstone may have decided to apply a modern day classification to these ships but that would have been his invention which counters every other source I've found so far.

Basing the changes on one source of information while many others do not agree with that information is rather sketchy based on what is required for a solid agreement. In the case of Constitution which is a Featured Article your changes should be discussed before implementation which is why I reverted them. I think that reading the main article Original six frigates of the United States Navy will break down the same explanation in regards to these ships as I've just explained above. Overall, you're going to have to find a lot more than one source to warrant a change. --Brad (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's accurate to dismiss The Sailing Navy, 1775-1854 as an aberrant work. It's the first volume of the fairly authoritative (and highly complete) US Navy Warship series, a five-volume comprehensive encyclopedia of American fighting ships, and is generally respected. Moreover, the description of the early US frigates by class - specifically as of United States-class, Constellation-class, and Chesapeake-class, is not confined to it. Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants (1991), by K. Jack Bauer and Stephen S. Roberts describes them as such, as does Picture history of the U. S. Navy, from old Navy to new, 1776-1897 (1956), by Theodore Roscoe and Fred Freeman. The former example, Register, is listed among Ships: A Navy Bibliography, provided by the Naval Historical Center. Other, lesser references, such as napoleon-series.org, also refer to the original frigates by these designations.

Is there any available reference which contradicts the designation of the original frigates in this way? I've encountered no information which lists them as without class, nor any which indicates classes other than those listed above. In the absence of countervailing evidence, the above references - several of them authoritative works nearly on par with Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships - should suffice, particularly given that the class names given are in agreement with general United States Navy practice.--Archimedean (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, yes. The Navy itself, through the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) does not list classes for them. For example, DANFS does not list a United States class for USS United States in that ship's entry. That the Navy does not list these ships as a class is pretty strong evidence.

I think the best way to handle this is to have a discursive note in list articles and a longer explanation in these "class" articles regarding the fact that these class names are latter-day creations, retroactively class-ifying these older ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference of yours that I have access to at the moment would be the napoleon series of which I spent about 30 minutes searching through. I did not find one point where any of the six frigates were referred to by a named class. Ships of that era were classed by rating ie: 44-gun 38-gun etc but never by name. On a technicality the US Navy didn't even exist when these ships were authorized. Common use of named ship classes started around the Civil War era and weren't used steadily until after 1900 or so. Modern authors may be applying class names retroactively which is not under the guidelines of WP:NC-SHIP. --Brad (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't returned to the conversation, I have removed the information that you added to the article. Please do not add the information again. Any further conversation should be carried out on the talk page of the article here. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ViceChiefOfNavalOperations.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ViceChiefOfNavalOperations.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox US Navy

Template:Infobox US Navy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on the List of X-Men members talk page

If you have time, your feedback is requested on the List of X-Men members talk page in the section about Other Status, X-Corporation, etc. We have massive sections of the page being removed, including things that have been debated and compromised on in the past, instead of being taken to the talk page first. Your thoughts would be appreciated. DeadpoolRP (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Hugh Rodman 2.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Hugh Rodman 2.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Felix Stump 2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Felix Stump 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 09:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]