User talk:Lyndaship: Difference between revisions

Operation Atalanta revert

Hello Lyndaship. I noticed you reverted my edit to Operation Atalanta, with the justification that the Italian Navy uses a space for their pennant numbers. This is a reasonable approach, though previously our articles on Italian ships did not use a space. The ones that do now, eg. Italian ship Elettra (A 5340), do so because you started mass moving them last month. I have no problem with the use of spaces as long as we are consistent. Your revert however undid many useful edits:

Linking to correct articles and terms were undone - eg FREMM multipurpose frigate was restored to Template:Sclass-.

Valid red links, eg Enseigne de vaisseau Jacoubet (F794) and Marne (A630), (you should be aware of WP:REDLINK by now) were removed.

Links to actual articles, eg NRP Vasco da Gama (F330) were removed.

Proper formatting, eg RFA Lyme Bay (L3007), was removed.

Factual errors, such as the pennant number of Carabiniere which I had corrected, were reintroduced (though I see you noticed this afterwards and corrected it again).

It is your responsibility to make sure that good edits are not lost in a revert. If in doubt, please take more time to understand the edits, and make manual alterations if necessary, rather than carrying out a blanket revert. I have restored the majority of my edits, while changing the links and the display of the Italian ships to use the spaced pennant number. Please be more discerning when to use reverts in future. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:Ships talk Archive 53 where the decision was made to correct the Italian Pennants. If you had looked at the edit history on Atalanta or on any of the Italian ship links before your bold edit you would have seen that I had corrected the pennants in recent edits and you should have asked yourself why they had been changed. Your edits were a mess breaking many links and introducing wrong names for ship classes and deserved to be reverted in toto. In due course I would have gone through them in detail to see if any other than the Carabinere should be reinstated. I take exception to someone hiding behind an IP trying to lecture me on procedure Lyndaship (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok I've gone through your edits now. On reflection it would have been better if I had waited until I had time to review them properly but I would still have reverted you once I did so as the number of errors introduced (the Italian Pennants, the FREMM as opposed to Bergamini and the Sirocco link error) exceeded the number of improvements. However if I had waited then I would have reintroduced your improvements after the reversion. When I looked quickly this morning I saw the FREMM one, the Carabiniere (which I mistakenly thought was an error, the Sirocco, the pennants and then the Aviso (which is not a ship type we use) coupled with wrong Spanish prefixes (which you had perpetuated on the links) and thought get rid of this of this half-baked edit by an IP editor quick and look at it later. Then I could also have wikified the links and deleted the made up ship prefixes. So yes I acted in haste but you should check everything before editing and then the situation would not have arisen Lyndaship (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

1st Airborne Task Force (Allied)

Re [1]. What book is this from? I would like to add it to me library. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. All the books are listed in the references section Lyndaship (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So there was no copyvio? I'll have to revert your changes then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah I understand now. The copyvio was not from a book but were cut and paste from two websites. If you look at the previous version you can see the cites in the removed section and check yourself. Lyndaship (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have a shelf of books waiting for me to get around to updating this article and others on the same campaign. Didn't mean to sound harsh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sandhya Jane

Hello Lyndaship. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sandhya Jane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nabomita Mazumdar

Hello Lyndaship. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nabomita Mazumdar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you help with SS Choctaw

Would you mind having a look at weather the photos are licensed correctly. GreatLakesShips retagged them yesterday, but I'm not sure that they are tagged correctly since I am not the best with this type of thing. Thank you in advance @GreatLakesShips: A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't - it's something I know nothing about Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks annyways :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Guard Ship

Hello Lyndaship, HMS Rodney, her duties conformed to this statement: "A port or major waterway may be assigned a single guardship which would also serve as the naval headquarters for the area." and yes the bread and butter was coastguard activities. Coastguard is a big word here covering a multitude; Guard / coastguard / reserve... There were a long succession of such vessels (equivalent to Rodney) on the Forth; it was a plum job, from memory, Beatty held it at one point. The deficiency here is in the (loose if not messy) article Guard ship, where it doesn't properly handle the terms Reserve and Coastguard, or even Special in this particular instance. Though it does say ...the historic equivalent of a Reserve fleet. The Forth (Queensferry) was always a special reserve installation, majorly installed in North Queensferry, minorly in South. Rodney would have been at anchor off Inchkeith. http://www.scotlandswar.co.uk/pdf_Queensferry.pdf and https://www.ebay.ie/itm/1896-HMS-EDINBURGH-COASTGUARD-SHIP-QUEENSFERRY-BATTLESHIP/123168180123?hash=item1cad65479b:g:R5sAAOSwl9BWJVIDWhat. What is the point your making here? Broichmore (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you. The source given in the article states that Rodney was allocated to Coastguard duties and her district stretched from just south of the Firth of Forth up to Cape Wrath. This seems rather anomalous with the concept of a static guard ship. The guard ship article you linked to I agree is messy and incomplete but doesn't cover a ship on coastguard duties at all. The source also states that coastguards were part of the crew - I find that strange for a RN ship solely acting as a port guardship. I can see nothing in http://www.scotlandswar.co.uk/pdf_Queensferry.pdf about guardship, coastguard duties, or HMS Rodney - perhaps you could enlighten me what I should be looking for in it. Nor can I see nothing relevant in the ebay link not that I would believe anything there. I suggest you rewrite the guard ship article with sources supporting your contention that coastguard duty = port guard ship in this period before you relink Rodney to it and/or provide sources that Rodney was designated the port guardship. So my point is you changed something when the existing source says something different leaving that cite in place Lyndaship (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: HMS Eaglet

Good morning,

I see why you reverted the article for fitting into an exsisting framework. To prevent confusion and having two pages of Eaglet, do you think it would be appropriate to have this info in the 'History' section of the other page?

Also having just read around and presented on the subject of Eaglet I may make revisions to the content of that ship list but references will be cited.

Best Regards M1hr (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes Wikipedia is very confusing and pedantic about its conventions. Its certainly appropriate to have the info about the shore base in the index page but I think it's already there. Index pages should just have a brief line about each ship, typically launched and scrapped plus the most noteworthy fact if there is one (generally there's not). Eaglet shore establishment doesn't need any info about the other Eaglets unless they were Eaglet shore establishment. Eaglet shore establishment will benefit from expansion, I'm sure there's lots more to tell. General rule is add what you want (provided it's sourced) and if somebody deletes you can discuss why you feel it belongs. Happy editing Lyndaship (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pamela Alexander at Lady Eleanor Holles School

I've reverted your edit as all the details about Pam Alexander were correct, just the link was wrong. I've removed the link and added references. Thanks for spotting this.Rhanbury (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Destroyer flotilla

Hello HMS Barfleur (D80) is not showing as a unit within the 3rd Destroyer Flotilla from 1947 to 1951. Also the article claim is incorrect because in Mackies, 3rd Destroyer Squadron Captain (D) list it does not mention Commander K C Grieve RN as officer commanding that squadron 1953-1954.--Navops47 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see you've put the citation needed tag on it. Probably just a typo from long ago, think I would just have deleted it as you have sources which disprove it Lyndaship (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ship prefixes

Hello Lyndaship,

I do not wish to engage in an editing war with you, but I respectfully ask to you to NOT remove the prefixes from the pages of the NATO Maritime Groups. Yes, you are correct, some NATO countries do not officially use prefixes for their ships, BUT it has been long standing NATO policy that if a NATO country does not use one, they assign one to them and becomes official from NATO's view. Neither of us are wrong, but it's not fair to call them "made up prefixes" either, and should stay when listed.

I can see you point as the article is about a NATO organisation but I do not think that trumps the need for continuity in when we use ship prefixes on Wikipedia. I will raise the matter at the WP:SHIPS board to seek further opinion Lyndaship (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

NATO does not rule over our style guide. Our style guide precludes made up prefixes. Do not use made up prefixes. I am removing them momentarily. Llammakey (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Cornish people

Hello, Thank you for your message. The category People from Cornwall has a note that people born or raised in Cornwall belong to that category rather than to "Cornish people". Other removals can be explained on the basis that Cornish people is a parent category of another category attached to that article which seems unnecessary duplication, e.g Cornish writers. You are right to say there has been no prior consensus.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad revert

Sorry about my revert of you at Cru, I was aiming for User:Faradorian's edit an your got their first. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising, I guessed that was the case. The important thing is that he was reverted Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons Category naming

I don't have the books (or easy access to them) to counter whats been said here: Virtually all reliable maritime literature, shipping registers, newspapers and journals, shipowners, shipping databases etc use year of completion as the general reference point, even if the date of launching is also included. It is en.wiki which the outlier on this. I am aware that at one time Lloyd's Register used year of launch, but it didn't last long (and of course in the days of sail there was rarely any difference, with some ships going straight to the loading berth from the launching ways). Do I even need it. I find no real difficulty in finding a launch date for virtually every ship, I come across! Grateful for your comments. Broichmore (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Lyndaship, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

HMS Gloucester

Hi. Just wanted to chat about one of your recent reversions of my edits at HMS Gloucester (62). I'm fine with most of them but this one with the edit description, "despite the reliable source..." caught my eye. Setting aside the removal of text supported by a reliable source, the treatment of the survivors is also mentioned by other sources. Would you be willing to accept some of the text to be reinserted if an additional source is provided (perhaps rephrased as well if you aren't happy with the wording)? Or do you have a more fundamental issue with the edit? 79.72.73.43 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. The source you provided is totally reliable but I found the writers assertions dubious to such an extent that I didn't search myself as I should have done to check so if you have found other RS which support it then maybe it should go back in. I say maybe as I'm not sure that it is relevant to the article but I'm quite happy to let others decide. Thanks for improving the article Lyndaship (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll need to go back to the books for the most reliable information; certainly Ken Otter refers to the prisoner situation but there may be others I can find as well. In terms of relevance to the article I see two reasons for reinsertion:

1. Some of the sources make clear that the German's actions of killing defenceless sailors in the water was in retaliation to the British killing of defenceless German soldiers in the water a day or two before hand. Without including the reliably sourced background, the article will just show the fact that the Germans slaughtered the Gloucester men; while I doubt many will dispute the "WW2 Germans are evil"^TM argument, the presence of sources would tend to require the addition of context to provide neutrality. Depending on how it is handled in the other sources I will be happy to present it as an opinion of the secondary source(s).

2. I see a key requirement of any article on the sinking of a ship to be whether the crew were rescued. In this case the sources suggest some of the Germans tried to execute and starve the prisoners so the point of "rescue" would be their transfer to the relative safety of the POW camp. If any of the surviving crew have a notable story from that point then it should be covered in their own article.

If you are still uncertain on these two points I will be happy to seek another opinion. 79.72.73.43 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking online I find several references to the Germans machine gunning (and one to bombing but I think that can be considered a bomb which was aimed at the ship and fell among crew who had already abandoned ship) survivors in the water. I have found no contemporary or reliable claims that it was in retaliation for the losses inflicted on the German troop convoy. So yes the machine gunning should be mentioned.

I agree that as long as the survivors remained a body the subsequent treatment should be mentioned. I still have doubts about that Independent article though as it strikes me as full of journalistic licence. I don't have Otters book but its not quite RS being his only book and from a publisher which Amazon lists three books from and he has a personal interest. However regardless its clear there are sources for your edits so I accept they should stand. Thanks for engaging Lyndaship (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)