User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

Request for advice regarding impending edit war at Musket

I've been rewriting the introductory paragraph at Musket for clarity and to reduce wordiness, as well as adding links to other Wikipedia articles to place developments in the historical timeline. However, another user (Qiushufang) has been reverting them as he seems to have a proprietary attitude towards the article. How should I proceed? GMan552 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like things might have cooled off - their most recent edit to the page just condensed two of the citations, and they left your edits in place. But if you run into more problems in the future, you might want to break down all of your changes on the talk page and explain one by one why you think they're needed. Ideally, you'd be able to discuss them individually, perhaps agree on some and not on others, but it would at least break a deadlock of simply reverting changes. If that doesn't work, there are places you can post to get other opinions (like at a relevant wikiproject, WP:Firearms or WP:MILHIST in this case, though I don't know how active FIREARMS is these days, so I'd go with MILHIST myself). There are also places to go in the dispute resolution process like WP:3O to get a third opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, I will follow your advice re: MILHIST and using talk pages for any future issues GMan552 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"Uri (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Uri (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Uri (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

HMS etc

Hi PB, I know we don't always agree, and on some things never will. However, we're apparently in complete agreement on the King Charles stuff. I can't believe how far up their own rear ends some people have their own heads! Comments such as "Wikipedia has certainly not covered itself with glory on this matter" have literally laughing out loud, literally. (No that isn't redundant, since literally can also be used figuratively now, it seems!) I'm all for using reliable sources, but where's the common sense? I have yet to be shown any change made to any article that was actually premature, let alone wrong. I'm done arguing over there. But I'm not done laughing at these rules-wonks. BilCat (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey BilCat, yeah, that discussion didn't make a ton of sense. Sure, there are edge cases like statutory entities (though I'd wager a not insignificant amount that they buried some footnote to cover this issue in the bill when they passed it; surely they knew that Elizabeth wasn't going to be around forever, and I can't imagine they'd have left an issue like that to be corrected by an amendment), but those are the minority. We don't need to consult a source to correct Her Majesty's Ship to His Majesty's Ship - you might as well add a {{cn}} tag for "water is wet". And right, I haven't seen any examples where we got it wrong. The whole discussion was a storm in a teacup (and I didn't see the point in continuing to participate after twc decided he needed to make it about me - dunno what his fixation is, but he needs to figure it out and move on). Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Battleship North Dakota

Thanks for the correction. I misunderstood the section title "Construction – 1917" to mean "construction starting in 1917" rather than "construction through 1917". Since it was laid down in 1907, my "correction" would have been correct, but reading it again I see my mistake. Sorry.

— Steve98052 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I can see how that could be ambiguous. If you can think of a better solution, I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe "Construction through 1917" (but that might imply that construction of the ship lasted that long)? I also don't want to get too wordy, but perhaps you have a better idea. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious about copyright status of image

Would you mind determining the copyright status of this image? I plan on replacing the old thumbnail of the SMS Oldenburg with this image but I'm otherwise unsure. Thanks. e (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. The main problem (which is something Gerd is well known to do, and I honestly don't know why he hasn't been indeffed from Commons yet) is that there's no source. How do we know when it was published? And who created it? We need to have a verifiable pre-1927 publication for it to be in the public domain in the US (since that's where the Wikimedia servers are located) and we need a date of death for the author before 1952 to demonstrate the photo is in the PD in Germany (or a publication before 1952 in Germany, along with evidence that the author was not disclosed at the initial publication or at any point between then and the following 70 years - this is of course a very hard bar to definitively prove). Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Cheers, mate. Sorry for the late reply. e (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
No worries, we all get busy from time to time. Happy to be of help. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I really appreciate it! Funny to think how fast time flies around here. Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Guichen

Well, this is only an asumption, which IMHO should not be made in Good Article, basing only on a vague sentence in two sources, that the ship operated on the Black Sea (Conway's and Jean Labayle-Couhat: French Warships of World War I, 1974). I have two more detailed sources on Guichen (Polish article by Michał Glock in "Morze, Statki i Okręty" special issue 4/2015 and Russian encyclopedia of WWI cruisers by Fiodor Lisytsyn, 2015), and they don't make any mention about her service outside of the Mediterannean and Toulon - Tripoli - Greece route in 1918-1919. I don't want to challenge the article, but if you want to leave Russia intervention, I would write, that according to some authors the ship operated on the Black Sea in 1919< reference here>, and in another sentence, what French Navy did on the Black sea in general. Regards Pibwl ←« 20:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I had a look in Robert's French Warships in the Age of Steam (which I would take to be fairly authoritative) and he gives service details that generally conforms to your sources. I've been slowly going through the articles on French cruisers from this period and updating them, but I haven't gotten to Guichen yet (obviously). I'll try to get to correcting it today. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It's been updated - by the way, if you have additional details from your articles, I'd be happy to see them added to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. In a meantime, I spotted several more photos of Guichen in Commons, promoted Polish article to GA and bought a book by Roberts last week - thanks for pointing my attention at it. I haven't seen such detailed (and apparently well researched) source for a long time. However, it shows, that most dates and dimensions about French ships in general seem to be inaccurate and needs to be reworked... ;) Pibwl ←« 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been overhauling the French warship articles I've written with Robert's book on and off this year; most of the protected cruisers have been fixed, but there are a lot of articles that still need work. One of these days, we'll have them up to date. Parsecboy (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, you could check, if in the sentence "Guichen served as the flagship of the Naval Division of the Far East and Western Pacific until 15 August, when D'Entrecasteaux arrived to relieve her as flagship" the source really refers to 1905 year. In Russian book on D'Entrecasteaux I have information, that only in November 1905 D’Entrecasteaux departed from Toulon and in December became a flagship of Indian Ocean Squadron, and on 15 August 1906 arrived at Saigon, becoming a flagship of Far East Squadron on 20 August. It conicides with Guichen returning to France in 1906. Pibwl ←« 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, 1906 is correct - the paragraph in Jordan & Caresse started in 1905 and I wasn't paying enough attention ;) I'll fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's right. In previous sentence I hope I made it clear, that according to one version it was Lightoller's Blenheim, while according to other his Blenheim fell on the pier, and the cruiser was hit by Murphy's. In the first source there is a photo of Lightoller's aircraft's tail on the pier, but the caption says, that it was recovered from water, so it's hard to say which version is right, and what assumptions authors made. There is also nice sketch of the aircraft's path, apparently from German report. BTW, according to Tetera, F/O Emden attacked Admiral Scheer. Pibwl ←« 13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Good, thanks! I tweaked it again to be even more specific about which author states which aircraft hit the ship. Take a look to make sure I have it right. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Dulicate source Rohwer

Hoi, First of all thanks for reviewing my edits, it's much appreciated ; I'm new at editing and I'm learning the ropes.

In an edit for the Admiral Hipper, I entered a duplicate for the Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War, since the existing entry had the publishing year 2005, and the new entry that I added was the book, with different ISBN nbr from 1993. The former book has 532 pages ( it's a much extended version ) and the latter has only 366 pages, So when in the citation I mention a page nbr, it's important to know from which edition it originates. Is it ok to add the 2 books or how should this situation be best tackled ?

Kind Regards Klutserke (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help you get moving in the right direction :)
Probably the best course is for me to go through and update the page numbers for the newer edition (which I have on hand) - give me a few days when I'll have time to pull it off the shelf (I work from home later this week). Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The editor who is arguing with you

I am getting a feeling that is a mixture of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and the nagging feeling that I have seen this calibre of behaviour before but am unable to identify a possible sock master. I admire your restraint. It's good to meet you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim - nice to meet you too. I don't know that there's any socking going on, but it does remind me of other situations where a new editor is a bit too invested in a topic to care to follow policies like WP:NOR (it reminds me quite a bit of the situation that surrounded the Operation Red Hat article for several years). But I think we may be turning a corner if I can continue to prod them to look at secondary sources. The article does need work, just not the sort they were doing. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
We're both old and ugly enough to have infinite patience and not care personally. They are over invested in the floppy disk controller draft as well. At least I got them to delete their copy and paste effort on the Two Oceans thing.
We have so many poor articles. It's good that they wish to enhance them, but they will not listen. Maybe we are getting through! They've created a large number of eyes on their contributions, that's for sure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
True, and I don't know about you, but I have some edits from early in my career I wish weren't there ;)
I was more optimistic before their most recent reply; seems they're not interested in writing the kind of article Wikipedia needs. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
We all start at no knowledge. You and I have taken advice When we got it wrong. I know that our best editors made very bad errors early on. This one does not take advice. Instead they seem interested in marching to their own drummer. I can see them vanishing soon, either compulsorily or of their own accord. Their attitude is not collegial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Right, there has to be some level of humility and willingness to learn from others if you want to stick around a place like this. I'm quickly losing patience for dealing with them, though; I have limited time to devote to working here, and I don't care to waste much more of it trying to help someone who won't be helped. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
They will work themselves into an indef block soon enough 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes and references

I don't have any intention to war about it, but this edit of yours confuses me very much. We all can agree that a section named Bibliography is obviously a list of books about the topic, but that's not the issue here. Notes are supposed to be explanatory notes, while the References are supposed to be sources. That's why the explanatory footnotes — {{efn}} — are automatically listed via Template:Notelist, while the references to external sources — including the short ones: {{sfn}} — are automatically listed via Template:Reflist. The section names you restored are clearly messed up. There's no logical reason to call the references Notes and the bibliography References. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Except that the shortened footnote templates are, of course, footnotes, so it is entirely appropriate to use a section titled "Notes" to house them. "References" is synonymous with "Bibliography" (in the sense that you're using the latter - and in my view, a proper bibliography more than a simple list of works cited). You will note that WP:SFN uses exactly this format. Remember that just because something isn't the way you do it, that doesn't make it wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I remember it, do you? I noticed the avalanche of rollbacks you're doing about Pola and Zara, for example. If a page mentions a town only because of its historical name, why shouldn't we link it? That's the reason why we have redirects. They're not supposed to be overwritten with the current (page)name, but to be preserved as they are in case of future developments. Have you ever considered that undoing multiple edits of mine on multiple pages for no actual issue that could damage the encyclopedia wasn't maybe the best choice? Have you ever considered that this disruptive attitude could be inappropriate? I must assume good faith, but bruh... These rampages of yours are something you should think about. Btw, I never said that references are not notes. Try again. I said that calling another section References in place of the actual references makes no sense IMHO. I talked about what those sections are supposed to be named, not about what they must be named. The comment itself started with a pacific statement: no intention to edit war about it. That was before you went on a rampage undoing other edits of mine on other pages; I will repeat it now, for a second and last time: I'm not going to undo your (inappropriate) rollbacks, I came here with pacific intentions. Try to do the same. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Re-read what I said. I did not say it was mandatory to use the format I chose for that article, I said that format is appropriate. Again, that you think something is supposed to be named something doesn't make that actually true. Accept that there are multiple ways to do things, and move on with your life.
There is zero point to replace links with redirects. How exactly do my corrections of your malformed edits "damage the encyclopedia"? My advice? You need to stop taking things personally. That you got something (or even a few things) wrong is not an indictment of you as a person. Move along. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Parsecboy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of torpedo cruisers of Italy – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 2. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Admiral Hipper

Your RV means the page has again a mix of 'Alta fjord' and 'Altafjord'. It should be consistent. The Altafjord page states that the English form is 'Alta fjord' so I lean towards that form for English-language WP but it is not a strong preference, unlike that there should be consistency. Nedrutland (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be consistent, but it should also be consistent with how we title the article. If "Alta fjord" is indeed more common in English (in the contexts I work, I generally only recall seeing "Altafjord", but that's not indicative of much), then the article should be renamed, but hasn't been demonstrated, and it's also a different matter. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
You may be interested to comment here; a quick ngram search seems to demonstrate that the claim in the Altafjord article is wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sanity check on sourcing?

Also pinging Sturmvogel 66 - I needed a minor project during a break on a larger one, and redid USS Marmora (1862). It's one of the better-documented tinclads, and I was able to hammer out 18kb of prose on a Union tinclad, which may be a record of some sort. However, I had to rely heavily in sections on the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies, as there are sizable gaps in the secondary literature for even a well-documented tinclad and I judged repeatedly using routine reports was better than being not comprehensive. Is this a reasonable approach to the situation? I've nominated it for GAN, and hope to slowly chip away at the hundreds of DANFS copies of ACW vessels over time, although it's probably an insurmountable task. I had some hopes for ACR for Marmora when I started writing, but I think that's out the window with how much I had to use the ORNs Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with how you used the ORNs as you limited it to factual data. I'd have no problem with this at ACR or FAC. I do see one big issue though. Tinclad warship is a redlink and is nowhere defined in the article. I think that you probably need to build at least a stub on that redlink so readers aren't cursing you for not telling them what one is. A much more minor issue is that you need to disambiguate between the two books that Smith published in 2010.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Sturm - I don't think it's an issue for the way you're using it. I actually stumbled across the OR some time ago and have a tab opened to a digitized copy in the hope of someday getting to overhauling some of those articles as well ;)
Good catch on the Smith 2010 issue - I hadn't noticed that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to both of y'all! I'll get the Smith references differentiated once I get back from traveling and will then try to ILL one last source and stubify tinclad before an ACR. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've got the general article on tinclads worked out at User:Hog Farm/List of tinclads of the Union Navy (although I think better mainspace title would be List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy. I'm not seeing any other significant use of tinclads in other navies, so tinclad warship could probably be re-targeted there once moved to mainspace. Any thoughts on if certain information should be added or omitted from the table? I suspect that a few of the individual articles on the tinclads would be best merged into a list like that, since there's no general class article (USS Tempest (1862) is one of the primary examples; it was commissioned just in time for the war to end and it be useless). I will also need to figure out what the best way to work in internal links to the proposed article will be.

If there was hope of getting the list article to FLC, I would probably try to good topic this, but I imagine there will need to be sizable work done to the list before hand. The existing FLs on warships seem to be not the best comparisons, as they are generally on vessels that were either constructed as classes or purposefully designed, while the tinclads were a very mixed hodge-podge of vessels. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the existing lists aren't the best comparison - those tables are heavy on technical specs so you can compare designs as they were developed through several classes, which obviously doesn't make sense here. I don't know that there'd be a lot of value in adding columns for displacement, armament, machinery, etc. The real question is what to do with articles you want to merge in. What you might do is add a "summary of career" column where you could write up a blurb on the highlights of each ship's career (like this). That's probably the cleanest way to incorporate a bit of prose on each ship on the list. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of SMS Friedrich Carl

Congratulations, Parsecboy! The article you nominated, SMS Friedrich Carl, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Nassau class battleship scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Nassau class battleship article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 28, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}
Donner60 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Donner, and the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Dubious about copyright status of image II

Hello,

Just wondering if you could check the copyright status of this image? I plan on using it as the infobox image for the article SMS Sachsen (1916) but I'm unsure otherwise.

Kind regards, e (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bro, that's another one where we need a pre-1927 publication for it to be PD in the US, along with the name of the photographer who took it. There may be the possibility that {{PD-Anonymous-EU}} applies, but we would still need to know where it came from to see that no author was credited when it was first published. In short, we can't use it with the very limited information we have right now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, and have a merry Christmas!
Cheers, e (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy to help, and thanks, the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Chin Yen vs Chin'en

Hi! About your revert:

  1. but then you have two different transliterations in one article, as in the first section the "Chin'en" was used (you fixed that in the next edit).
  2. Wright and Feng are using old transliteration of Japanese which is not correct. There is no y-sound in the sinojapanese reading of 鎮遠 (and yes, it wasn't commision under different name, it was just sinojapanese reading of the same characters instead of chinese one). Chin'en is used for example by Lengerer, Hans & Ahlberg, Lars (2019), which is the last publication (afaik) on this topic in English language.

Bye, Ozzy (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Indeed - but there were two different transliterations regardless; we should use the one more commonly used in reliable sources.
  2. No romanization system is more "correct" than another; they are, at best, approximations attempting to convert one language's phonemes into another's, usually with imperfect results. Feng was published in 2018, the year difference between his book and Lengerer et. al. is meaningless. Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    1. Which one? One is transliteration of Chinese and one is transliteration of Japanese language... That's perfectly ok. What was the problem was two different transliterations used for the japanese reading. I tried to to fixed it and you just decided to revert this to the less accurate version.
    2. Maybe meaningless as the time relevance, but still the "Chin'en" transliteration is more closer to the japanese ちんえん. And isn't Feng using this transliteration only because it was used previously by Wright? It's wrong, but it was used by the authority...
    Ozzy (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Chin Yen is not a transliteration of Chinese. That would be Chen Yuen or Zhenyuan (which would be Wade–Giles and Pinyin, respectively). Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Where did I say that? Chin Yen is in the article as an old and deprecated transliteration of Japanese. I tried to add the new one and you reverted it. About transliteration of Chinese I meant the original chinese names. And btw: both Wright and Feng use "Chen Yuen", instead of "Zhenyuan". The later one is used in the article. Where is your argument "we should use what Wright and Feng use" now? Should we rewrite it in the article to the Chen Yuen? And if not, why not also use the modern and more correct transliteration of the japanese ちんえん? Please, think about it... Ozzy (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I said that there were two different transliterations in the article regardless (i.e., you left the caption of the bottom image as Chin Yen), to which you replied that "one is a transliteration of Chinese and one is transliteration of Japanese language". What else did you mean by that? As for your second point: Zhenyuan has far surpassed Chen Yuen in usage; Chin'en still hasn't done the same. English usage is what it is, and we follow it, not try to right great wrongs, which seems to be your goal here. Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the name in the image caption. So I have no idea about what two different transliterations are you talking about. Ad second point: and how many of them are influenced by the fact that Wikipedia preferes the old and wrong one? Btw: Wikipedia follows, so it's ok to follow the latest paper on the subject. And that's Lengerer & Ahlberg. This is not RGW. Btw: 良いお年を! --Ozzy (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Chin Yen and Chin'en are both transliterations of Japanese; how exactly is that not clear?
You're wrong, plain and simple, about most of the points in this discussion. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Ps: Google also thinks it's Chin'en --Ozzy (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Who cares? Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Parsecboy!

Happy New Year!

Parsecboy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and happy New Year to you too! Parsecboy (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860–1905

Been watching you remove the colon from all of these entries. There's still about 150 to do, I can remove about 100 of them with AWB in 10 mins. Shall I do it leaving the balance for you to do manually? Hate to see one of our best editors spending his time on little stuff. Lyndaship (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Lynda, it's not a big deal either way - I'm just fiddling around while I'm listening to some CE trainings at work ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

TFA

January songs
happy new year

Thank you today for Nassau-class battleship, from 2009, the good old days. I just put a DYK from 2013 o top of my talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! It's a little funny, thinking about how long we've been around here. Sometimes I edit an old article and I'll look through the edit history and think "did I really write this a decade ago?" Time sure flies. Parsecboy (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and sometimes I look up who began an article, and find out it was Gerda Arendt ;) - on vacation, pics if you click on songs but 3 days missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Ha, that's pretty funny, I've done that too! I do always envy your vacations. I'm headed out to Utah next week (for work, unfortunately), but I'm going to try to sneak in a hike while I'm there. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I have lovely memories of Utah National Parks Arches, Bryce, Zion. - I'm back now - Melitta Muszely died, RIP - the other story is 10 years old OTD ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, no hiking this time, and I'm flying back in a few hours, so it'll have to wait until the next trip out here - luckily, I expect to make more trips out here for work, so I'll have more opportunities. We are planning on bringing the kids out to hike the Mighty Five (no, not that Mighty Five!) - those are Bryce, Zion, Arches, Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Begging your pardon absolutely (absolutely)

wp:NOTBROKEN

wp:DASHES (see also dash)

template:infobox#Usage

wp:NBSP (see also Wikify)

Please. Olivetheother (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC) p.s.

@Olivetheother: - it's not clear to me that you read any of those links, or at least understand what any of them say.
On WP:NOTBROKEN, do you understand how piped links work? If the link is hidden behind a pipe, then you don't need to move the "s" outside of the link.
On dashes, from the link you posted (emphasis mine):
"Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). To enter them, click on them in the CharInsert toolbar, or enter them manually..."
On non-breaking spaces, did you actually read the link you posted? It explicitly supports the usage in the article and contradicts your edit.
As for the last one, that assumes there was a baby in your edit. There was nothing you changed in the article that warranted retaining.
Oh, and if you're going to talk to other editors, actually talk to them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Edit summaries are particularly important when reverting. They should provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to at least one article that you believe justifies it.
Reversion is complete rejection of the work of another editor, and if yours is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.[1] A substantive explanation promotes consensus by alerting others and inviting discussion from a more knowledgeable editor among more knowledgeable editors[2] who parse edit histories to parse – well, whatever it is somebody's[3] not parsing.[4]
If your reasons for (simply) reverting are too complex for a summary, consider putting them on the article's Talk page. Better yet, do that first (ping the potential revertee) and wait, thus giving the other editor a chance to possibly probably agree with you and revert themselves.[5]
Dis sayin' ...[6] --Olivetheother (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
If you aren't going to bother trying to defend your edit on its own merits, stop wasting both of our time. The rest of this pettifoggery. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).



Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts

Point taken on USS Massachusetts (BB-59) article. Thanks! Also, your pointing out of my memory lapse (inre p= and pp=) helped me go back to templates for a much needed refresher which, in turn, has streamlined some of my editing by avoiding some unnecessary workarounds. Thanks! Habe a great day! Boo Boo (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too! Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Not doing so is the most common cause of edit wars.
  2. ^ meh
  3. ^ Bless their heart.
  4. ^ Half the people you know are below average.
  5. ^ Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, wait to see if they explain.
  6. ^ The other half know you.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parsecboy/Archive_45&oldid=1143795628"