Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.
Another order of battle similar to Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. As with that one this is a little speculative but I feel that it passes the criteria. Comments welcome. --Jackyd101 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Hi Jackyd101, certainly not an area of expertise for me but some MOS comments and other bits and pieces as I find them will hopefully be of use to you.
- Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
- Removed, but where do you suggest the link to the main article should be?
- It's a shame to see that long red link in the middle of the lead, any chance of a stub?
- A French speaking editor has agreed to create this article when he has a chance, but he hasn't gotten around to it yet. He can doa better job of a stub than I can.
- "..a scratch ..." not 100% sure that this is clear to everyone.
- Clarified.
- "Unbeknownst " a little too Shakespearean for me! Why not just "Unknown..."?
- Changed.
- I'm never keen on small fonts, they prejudice against people with visual difficulties.
- Sorry, I'm not sure where this is?
- "Ship", "Rate", "Guns" etc... headings in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, done.
- "Ship", "Rate", "Guns" etc... headings in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not sure where this is?
- Presumably there's some logic behind why you have some redlinks and some unlinked Commanders?
- Those in red links should have articles but I haven't assembled the materials to create them all yet (on the whole I prefer holding off from creating stubs until I can do an article justice). Those without links at all are unlikely to ever merit an article of their own.
- Commodore Bompart's Squadron casualties are listed differently from Commodore Warren's squadron in the Action of 12 October, 1798 section. Why?
- Because the casualties for the largest and worst damaged French ship are not broken down in the sources, being given as 270 killed and wounded. All the casualties for the British ships are clearly broken down into killed and wounded and so a more defined total can be given.
- Then since it appears inconsistently and since I had to ask why, I suggest you add a note to that effect in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry missed this. Now done.
- Then since it appears inconsistently and since I had to ask why, I suggest you add a note to that effect in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the casualties for the largest and worst damaged French ship are not broken down in the sources, being given as 270 killed and wounded. All the casualties for the British ships are clearly broken down into killed and wounded and so a more defined total can be given.
- What does "-" mean in the casualties section? Is it "unknown"? or zero?
- Ah, good point, for one ship it mean that it wasn't recorded and for another it means that it wasn't engaged at all. I have now changed this.
- "Action of 13 October, 1798" section could use some explanation as it's very different from the 12 October!
- I tried to provide links to the relevant sections of Battle of Tory Island, but they came out with a big # mark in the middle. Do you know how to pipe this link so the # doesn't appear?
- What are you trying to link to exactly and what would you like the link to say? The Rambling Man
- I tried to provide links to the relevant sections of Battle of Tory Island, but they came out with a big # mark in the middle. Do you know how to pipe this link so the # doesn't appear?
(talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping to use a link like Further information: Battle of Tory Island § Melampus and Résoluebut to make it look a bit tidier it would appear like Melampus and Résolue.
- So cheat and say For more details on this topic, see Melampus and Résolue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sneaky, I like it.
- So cheat and say For more details on this topic, see Melampus and Résolue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping to use a link like
- There are no casualty summaries for the Flight of the Loire... any reason for this?
- I just didn't put them in, done now.
- "Captain Jean-François Legrand †" - what does † mean? KIA I suppose, but no key for this.
- Done.
- " dropped out on October 28." what does dropped out mean here?
- Clarified.
- A lot of articles now have a single "References" section with "Specific" and "General" subsections. Worth considering I guess.
So, a few things to look at I think. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much. I have looked at your comments and implemented them where possible. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice work, my comments resolved accurately and rapidly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A nice orbat which meets the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In what order are the ships listed? Is it consistent for each table? Might it be useful to have the ship name and commander columns sortable? Hmains (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew
Comments
- The "Unbeknownst" that TRM pointed out still exists
- Not any more.
- Link Rate in the table headers to Rating system of the Royal Navy, and removd over-wikilinking of "First rate", "Second rate", etc in the tables.
- I'm not sure how removing the links benefits the article. I understand the reasons overlinking is discouraged in text, but here it provides uniformity.
- Why are the French ships rated, when those links say they relate to Royal Navy rating system?
- For the purposes of comparison. Although the French did not use this rating system professionally, it is normal in naval history texts to do so for comparative purposes.
- Also, those ratings should have a hyphen, not a space.
- The terms can be used with either a hyphen or a space and they redirect to the same place anyway.
- Should the French ships have any initials, an equivalent of HMS, basically?
- No, French ships of the period did not have any prefixes and it is anachronistic to back date modern ship prefixes.
- Rather than "For more details on this topic, see…", can't some prose be included, and incorporate the links into that prose instead?
- I'm not convinced of the value of including a potted history here when a simple link will lead to a much more complete explanation. In an ideal world, these tables would be included in the main article but as they are long and will dominate the text I moved them here instead and on a suggestion from TRM included wikilinks to the relevant parts of the main article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:45, 28 March, 2008
- Thankyou for your comments, I have addressed them above and incoporated some into the article. Other I have questioned and would appreciate feedback on them before I implement them in the article or not.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Provided feedback on 2 points, everything else ok. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008
- Thankyou for your comments, I have addressed them above and incoporated some into the article. Other I have questioned and would appreciate feedback on them before I implement them in the article or not.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses:
- How have the ships been entered into the tables? It doesn't appear to be alphabetical, by rating, by # of guns, or anything else.
- They have been entered according to their position in the respective battlelines and consequently the order in which they joined battle. How would you recommend this is explained?
- Can it be narrowed down to the time, or nearest hour when they engaged battle? I don't really know what to suggest as I'm not familiar with it, but the article is called Order of Battle, so maybe nothing needs to be done. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008
- I have created a simple key to understanding the table which I have placed with the references. This covers this issue. Hopefully this addresses the problem.
- The key should appear before the first table, otherwise the reader is looking at the information with no idea what it relates to. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried this but it looked very untidy. I have made a note at the top linking to the bottom, is this enough?
- The key should appear before the first table, otherwise the reader is looking at the information with no idea what it relates to. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a simple key to understanding the table which I have placed with the references. This covers this issue. Hopefully this addresses the problem.
- Can it be narrowed down to the time, or nearest hour when they engaged battle? I don't really know what to suggest as I'm not familiar with it, but the article is called Order of Battle, so maybe nothing needs to be done. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008
- They have been entered according to their position in the respective battlelines and consequently the order in which they joined battle. How would you recommend this is explained?
- Any chance of including [refs] in the notes sections of the tables?
- Sorry, I meant to come back to this and forgot. The information in the tables comes from the same source which gives the most detaield information but is backed up in general by the other sources provided. I don't really think the article needs 30 odd references to the same place on eveyline, would it be better instead to provide a link for each table, then at least the page numbers would change?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work, I think. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008
- Done, let me know what you think.
- That works for me, although the hyphens in page name should be endashes (–), per WP:MOS. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- That works for me, although the hyphens in page name should be endashes (–), per WP:MOS. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, let me know what you think.
- That would work, I think. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008
- Sorry, I meant to come back to this and forgot. The information in the tables comes from the same source which gives the most detaield information but is backed up in general by the other sources provided. I don't really think the article needs 30 odd references to the same place on eveyline, would it be better instead to provide a link for each table, then at least the page numbers would change?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One last thing, about the red links that point to pages of French ships captured by the British. Looking at the articles for them that do exist, they all include in the infoboxes and main text that they were captured and recommission as British. I don't think the articles you've red linked to will ever be created and so are unnecessary inclusions here. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is the case actually, some ships (HMS Proserpine and HMS Resolue) for example had very uneventful careers and may never have their own articles, but it is fairly common for ships that change hands to have seperate articles on their different service in different navies (i.e. USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano) and I think ships like HMS Donegal, HMS Loire and HMS Immortalite may well have seperate articles on their French and British incarnations at some point in the future. However for the moment it maybe better to redirect them as that is where the information can currently be found.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice list, I like it when non-sports, media or music lists come through here. -- Scorpion0422 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.