User talk:RobDuch

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, RobDuch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Howicus (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, if your edit history is any indication. Howicus (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

RobDuch, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi RobDuch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Pennsy-class article[edit]

I saw your recent edits to this article and have partially reverted some of them. The infobox is supposed to be a concise summary of the information in the description paragraph in the main body, you've added a lot of detail relating to the ship's refits. This needs to be removed and rewritten so it fits in the main body, which currently lacks much information on the ships' refits. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about all of this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you're watching my talk page (click on the hollow star at the top of the page to do so), but I've replied to your message there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

Greetings![edit]

Hey, I appreciate your efforts to help make the Mahan-class destroyer article a better one. And, of course, I appreciate your kind words. I’d suggest wikiproject ships and DANFS. Friedman’s publication is an excellent one, but it’s primarily for design history. If you plan to bring a destroyer article up to speed, a ships general history is important in the scheme of things. So an additional source or sources of reference might be helpful. Happy New Year! Pendright (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

New London, Connecticut[edit]

Thanks for your interesting addition about military installations in New London. Just wondering if you could add a few references for your edit. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disappearing carriage Bethlehem Steel pamphlet[edit]

Thanks. I'd been trying to find a worthwhile copy of that for a while; I even started scanning an ILL copy from the West Point library, before it became obvious I'd have to break the binding to continue. If memory serves, either CDSG or the Brit Fortress Study Group had some pictures of the rail-mounted, tunnel-sheltered disappearing guns at Ft. de Dailly; have you ever run across them? BTW, whaddaya make of the DG article as it stands now? When I ran across it a few months ago, it had a Kiwicentric look; a lot of the (mis?)info was based on installations in New Zealand.Anmccaff (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Coast Artillery articles[edit]

I noticed that you wrote 16-inch gun M1895. I'm working on US Coast Artillery gun articles myself. I expanded 8-inch M1888 to include the disappearing version of the gun, and I worked on 16"/50 caliber M1919 gun and 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 gun. I'm planning to expand 12-inch Gun M1895 to include the other types of Coast Artillery 12" guns, and to make a new article about the 10" guns. Does this conflict with anything you're planning to do? RobDuch (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That was just a one off I created hopefully to get to DYK. No plans to interfere with any artillery articles -- Esemono (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Navy vet[edit]

I notice that you have a userbox on your page that you are a Navy vet. I was curious if/what ship(s)/boat(s) you may have served on. My youngest son served on the USS Columbus (SSN-762). I have been interested in submarine history ever since I read Run Silent, Run Deep in the late 70s. I am currently working on a timeline for US Navy sub at User:Nyth83/Timeline of submarines of the United States Navy. Don't have enough time to devote to it so I do a couple hours of work a week on it. Should have it done in a couple of months. If you would like to look at it and make any comment or suggestions, it would be appreciated.

I also created the articles Timeline of battleships of the United States Navy, Timeline of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, and Timeline of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy if you are interested in checking them for errors. Nyth63 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

USN Submarines[edit]

Rob... Thank you for your excellent work in updating the articles on USN submarines. Several years ago I wrote 90% of the article on the Gato class. I also started updates on some of the others, but before I could finish I kept getting overwritten by someone else who kept changing my changes, and most were not for the better. Quite frankly I got frustrated with it and decided to stop wasting my time. Recently I came across your revisions and was very pleased to see all the updates. I am a naval historian and a Qualified Submariner that specializes in USN submarine history from 1900 though the 70's. All of your research is based on solid, reliable sources (many of which I use as well) and is well written. I have found only a few minor quibbles so far. Please keep it up. I am an active duty Chief Petty Officer in the USN and am currently on deployment so my involvement will be somewhat limited until I get back. If you don't mind I will review things as I have time and make whatever minor changes that I come across.

The only good history is correct history and you are on the right track. Wikipedia is a great resource now and keeps getting better.

Thank you!

Dave Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveyJ576 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in the Navy 1978-84 as a nuke MM, on USS Pargo (SSN-650) 1980-82 and USS Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) (Gold crew) 1982-84. My dad was an LDO who started out as a torpedoman on diesel boats and generally alternated between NUWC Newport (was NUSC) and squadron weapons officer billets in the New London area. But his last tour was in San Diego and he retired to Escondido; I retired to Arizona last year and I can see him sometimes. I've always been into submarine history. I keep a "log" of the articles I've done significant work on in my personal page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobDuch . You'll see that I started with the B-boats and have done up through the Permits. I plan to do the Sturgeon class page soon. I do class pages because of the wide disparity in quality among them. Another user just made me aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sturgeon-class_submarines , much of which I'll probably put in the class page. I have generally added to existing pages rather than rewrite them. The exception was the Tambor-class page, which contained sweeping statements like "the first true fleet submarine" and "formed the core of the submarine force after Pearl Harbor" with no specifics or references. I rewrote most of that and nobody's objected so far. Thanks for serving, I hope your deployment goes well. RobDuch (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox usage[edit]

Hello Rob - thank you for your contributions to ship articles. I just thought I'd let you know, in case you missed it, that WP:SHIPS long ago decided that cites in infoboxes should not be used so long as the same information is cited in the article itself (which it almost always should be). Also, engine and boiler details should go into the "ship power" field in the infobox rather than "ship propulsion", per Template:Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide#Infobox_ship_characteristics. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of what the standards are for ship articles. I'll attempt to comply with them in future. However, I've edited over 50 ship and ship class articles over the last 20 months, and I cannot recall any that were well-referenced that had no cites in the infobox, and particularly none that had machinery listed in the "ship power" section. I can recall several that had a cite for each line of the infobox and few or none elsewhere. I'm sure you're aware that hundreds of ship articles are nowhere near up to these standards. My observations could be due to my focus on bringing numerous stubs up to a useful standard, rather than produce a few Good Articles. I tend to edit articles that have not had a substantive edit made in two or more years. From what you're saying it sounds like most of the infobox needs to be restated in the article, if only to cite useful references. - RobDuch (crossposted from my talk page - Gatoclass).
Yes, there's a lot of noncompliance with the infobox ship guide going on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to rectify it :)
As for the cites issue - cites in the infobox can be tolerated, I think, where someone simply hasn't had time to add the same info to main body text - I have done that myself on occasion. There may also be rare occasions where it's just too awkward to add some obscure fact from the infobox to main body text. The point is, though, that you don't need to cite info in both the infobox and main body text. Infobox info should generally be included in main body text and cited there rather than being cited in the infobox. Hope that helps to clarify things a little. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahan-class dstroyer[edit]

In your enthusiasm to edit the Mahan-class destroyer article, you left your new engineering section without a citation. Pendright (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • In the last paragraph of the Design section you inserted the following: “partially due to the increased light anti-aircraft armament added”… Because my existing reference (Note 7 - Roscoe p.20) does not seen to contain any such information, you’ll need to cover this with an additional source. Also, by adding and linking anti-aircraft, you double linked it - see Armament section. Pendright (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Becase of my recent ext, it is now Note 8. Pendright (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I took out the "crew due to AA guns" part, due to lack of a reference. I found a general statement in Friedman for the last part of the Engineering section (there are numerous cites in the body of it), so I added that. RobDuch (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)