User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nigel Ish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Good Tidings and all that ...
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMS Ambuscade (D38) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- be no more than {{convert|315|ft|m|2}} long [[length between perpendiculars|between perpendiculars ((pp)]].<ref name="Friedman p188-0">Friedman 2009, pp. 188–190.</ref><ref name="English p7-8">
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
|
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) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited G-class destroyer (1944), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daring-class destroyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Nigel:
I'm curious. Is there any particular reason that you required the citation of a reliable source for the astonishingly unremarkable service ceiling of 42,000 ft (13,000 m) for the LTV Corsair II jet aircraft, when none of its other performance parameters is cited, or required citation? Why 'service ceiling', in particular?
- The specifications were cited to reliable sources, as listed at the top of the specifications section. When you added information without quoting a source, it gave the impression that it was sourced to the existing, sources, misrepresenting them. In addition, the reference that you provided when you re-added the service ceiling almost certainly does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. So is dubious even now.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello!
- A discussion has been started on your conduct here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_on_who_decides_.22fair_use.22_and_the_.22no_equivalent.22_policy_for_pictures_on_Wikipedia.3F --99.244.158.43 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
|
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) 23:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
RAAF Meteors
Hi Nigel. According to the RAAF Museum, A77-3 was NF11. It operated at Woomera.Lexysexy (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Republic P-47 Thunderbolt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [[Venezuelan Air Force]]{<ref name="iapr7 p165"/>
- an item doesn't apply, like capacity, leave it blank. For additional lines, end your alt units with) and start a new, fully-formatted line with -->
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Swordfish (1916), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
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) 12:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huszár-class destroyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
|
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) 14:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Colourised Junkers 86 and Savoia Marchetti SM81 Photos
Hello Nigel, I see my colourised photos have been reverted to the originals in their respective articles Junkers Ju 86 and Savoia-Marchetti SM.81. If I had provided citations for where I got the colour information, would that be enough to have the colourised versions on the articles? I must admit I was a little unclear about what I was doing.Bfd1942 (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no. Colourised photos do not belong in an Encyclopedia - using them is inserting information which is not in the original photo. Even if you do have accurate information on the colour scheme of an aircraft, you don't really know the light conditions, so colourisation is not encyclopedic.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Bfd1942 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
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) 22:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
|
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) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Short Stirling
MessageKeith-264 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to JDS Shirayuki (DD-123) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- license-built [[Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King|Sikorsky Sea King]], later replaced by [[Mitsubishi H-60]]s (licensed [[Sikorsky S-70]]s, with the Canadian [[Beartrap (hauldown device)|Beartrap]] haul-down
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
24 class sloop
all evidence i have found points to HMIS Lawrence and HMIS Clive being 24-class sloops. do a quick Google search if you are not satisfied. considering the RIN was using RN sloops designs and that they dont belong to any other sloop class which served at the same time, i think its safe to say that uboat.net etc are right in that they were 24 class. even the pictures of the ships seem to match. so let me know if you have any objections to me re-reverting your reverts.... Pvpoodle (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you actually look at specifications for the ships as reported in good sources, the 24s and the two Indian sloops were very, very different. The 24-class were powered by triple-expansion steam engines rated at 2500ihp and driving a single shaft giving a speed of 17 knots with a displacement of 1320 t (p. 95–96 of Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921). The two Indian ships were both powered by geared steam turbines driving two shafts, with Lawrence' machinery giving 1900 shp and 15 knots, and Clive's giving 1700 shp and 14.5 knots. (Jane's Fighting Ships 1931). Furthermore they actually looked quite different - compare [1] - a 24-class sloop, with square bow and stern and a deliberately symmetrical layout with [2] - HMIS Clive or [3] - HMIS Lawrence. They were also built at completely different shipyards - the two cancelled 24s were built by Swan Hunters on the Tyne, while the two Indian ships were built by Beardmores of Glasgow (who didn't build any 24s). Need I go on? They are definitely not of the same class.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- clyde built has a diffrent pic that the one that came up on google image search <_< . guess i was wrong, do you have any idea what class those 2 ships belonged to? any help would be much appreciated. Pvpoodle (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- They appear to have been individual ships and not members of a distinct class - and have enough differences between them that they probably cannot be treated as part of a single class. Lawrence was 248 ft long and displaced 1412 tons while Clive was 270 ft long and displaced 2100 tons, although it does note that both ships were designed by "Sir Wm. Biles & Co".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- so custom designed sloops then. that clears up a bit of confusion. thanks again for your time and effort
- They appear to have been individual ships and not members of a distinct class - and have enough differences between them that they probably cannot be treated as part of a single class. Lawrence was 248 ft long and displaced 1412 tons while Clive was 270 ft long and displaced 2100 tons, although it does note that both ships were designed by "Sir Wm. Biles & Co".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- clyde built has a diffrent pic that the one that came up on google image search <_< . guess i was wrong, do you have any idea what class those 2 ships belonged to? any help would be much appreciated. Pvpoodle (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Sir_Bevis_%281918%29_IWM_SP_689.jpg){kind=link}
in helping with this 
Pvpoodle (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- also please feel free to add more ships to the List of ships of the Indian Navy, like you did with the Ton class (did not know about those), especially with the early ships of the WW1 and WW2 and early cold war eras, information about which is hard to find today. thank you Pvpoodle (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Nigel, I saw you added the 1912 Brassey's to the article - does it have anything on the Italo-Turkish War that Beehler doesn't? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't happen to come across it while I was trawling Google Books, so if there's anything worth adding please do. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
copyvio
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm a bit confused. On the HMS Jersey page I re-worded everything in the 'Pre-war service' section so its not the same as the original source. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong!
Thanks Apocalypticdoom (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- The text after you changed was still far to close to the source. It still read like the source and the reader could still tell that it was closely based in the original. You shouldn't just reword sources, but write the article using your own words to convey the information in the sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Libia
Good catch on the VTE for Libia - was a poor copy-paste job from Dogali ;-) Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
No big deal :) - but as the 1st reference to the work (I know it's in the bibliog.) shouldn't it be a full one? — Saltmarshtalk 19:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, that's why articles have bibliographies.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits of page <wiki/No._255_Squadron_RAF>
Please would you visit the Talk page relating to No.255 Squadron and there (a) constructively join in the discussion about "splitting", also (b) set out your connection (if any) with the squadron. The result of a lot of difficult research work done by descendants of squadron members has, within the last few days, been deleted without prior discussion. 255 Historian (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Merry
To you and yours
The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
|
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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HAL HT-2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inline engine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Leopard (1897), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmouth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
|
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) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
|
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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No. 254 Squadron RAF
There is undoubtedly a copyvio on this article, but it is not of my making. Rather than the somewhat draconian action threatened of deleting the article, I suggest that the amendment of 07:24, 27 September 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No._254_Squadron_RAF&diff=next&oldid=543086668) should be reversed, as this would appear to have been copied directly from the RAF website by an IP editor. I hope you concur that this action is acceptable. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Ar 198
Hi Nigel, I started a section here about how many were built. Can you take a look at http://www.histaviation.com/Arado_Ar_198.html and see if 2 or 3 should be stated. Thanks Samf4u (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
|
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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Buncrana census results
Hey, you reverted changes I made to the census table in the Buncrana article; which you were correct to do as I had accidentally hit the save changes button before completing the table so it was a mix of 2006 and 2011 figures but I have finished it now so I am going ahead and update it. HylandPaddy (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- What sources do you think the mystery editor is using? If the editor is copying from somewhere then they are doing a very poor job considering the number of typos and poor English that they are adding.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Website "helis.com" not a reliable source?
Hi, I just noticed your reversion to my use of "helis.com" as a valid source for the number of Argentine SA330L; your reason was " helis.com is user edited and therefore not a reliable source ". I also noticed that this same source has been used in other articles without being challenged. Is there consensus documented somewhere that info from "helis.com" should not be used in wikiarticles? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- See [4]. The website explicitly says that anyone can add or edit a database item. That definatly qualifies it as a non- reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Crystal clear, thanks.DPdH (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
B-25 article edits
I am perhaps the most diligent researcher of the B-25 Program and have contributed to several top books on the subject, online articles, museums and archives. my research findings are found in B-25 circles worldwide. I can significantly improve the article if it were not locked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b025:bc0f:2dfc:d223:3617:858e (talk)
re: B-25 article Your major users are distorted. these correct major users were: AAF USMC RAF The latter two about equal. The USN tested one or a few G series and conducted carrier trails with a sole H series ( see the article). The RCAF used the type in NA as a trainer but was no more a user that other Commonwealth Nations. not in top three as per guidelines. NEI was significant to the program as was China. The AAFAC WAS A USER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b025:bc0f:2dfc:d223:3617:858e (talk)
- Discuss this on the article talk page please. Changes need to be verifiable to reliable sources, not original research, or claims about personal expertise. They also need to be coherently written, which many of the recent IP changes to the article were not.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
How does one access article talk page? are you saying offical archival material are not acceptable references? Not asking that info be accepted on basis of personal expertise. What I was trying to get across is that the B-25 article cites outdated, incorrect references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B013:3817:E602:877:1B9D:3F4B (talk • contribs) 14 May 2015 18:24
2600 all you need to do is click on the tab "talk" on the North American B-25 Mitchell page or follow this link Talk:North American B-25 Mitchell. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lost six, I was aware of these as they are not hard to find, makes you wonder if we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue with the IP. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible that the source the IP is using lists these six as Gs. However, as they seem to have problems with using talk pages and citing sources, sorting out the articles may be a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Way back in 2008 this edit which added a short citation to the article French invasion of Russia was it a different edition to the book already listed as a long citation or was it a different volume? Please could you add the relevant long citation to the references section? I ask because I want to clean up the references and link short citations to long ones using the {{harv}} templates and at the moment there are a lot of similar problems in the article. -- PBS (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's the paperback edition of what I assume is the same book - I've added a full citation.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
HMS Wild Swan (D62) copyvio
Thankyou for your comments on my work in progress on this article. I shall revert your deletion of my amends - I intend to conform to copyright requirements, but copy/pasting is a simple way of minimising effort while using an online item as a source for relevant info. As I worked through, note that I made no attempt to disguise the source of the information that I used; there are other sources that I will also cite - online and print. When I interrupt work, I usually try to leave the article in a clean state for readers - in this case, mea culpa. By the way, I suspect that some of the text you restored was also a direct copy/paste, but without citations to make proving it easy - as was pointed out in the banner at the top of page. I hope that you will permit me to finish improving this article and citing sources, then any comments/criticisms would be much appreciated. Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I note that you reinserted blatant copyvio from the nav-hist site - including direct copying of the first paragraph of the page "ordered in April 1918 with 38 others...", and that you continue to keep copied text on your talk page - as you continue to act in this way I have reported the issue at the Copyright Problems page.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
P-51
It has been notice that the standard first sentence on WWII VINTAGE article includes the type of propulsion and country of origins. it was also been noted the conformace to the standard is not vandalism. it is futher noted that you are incapable or unwilling to use Wiki protocols regarding citation tags and reverts. therefore it is noted that there is other motivation beyond good article cohesion motivating your behave. it is also hoped that writting this in the passive voice will improve your comprehension and provide a degree of non-atributal qualities to the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:C19C:39AD:3E86:E31C:6E07 (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your addition to the P-51 lede paragraph was misleading - the P-51 was by no leap of imagination an "International Aircraft" and the it did not "emerge" as a single seat fighter in 1943, it already was one, and represented no improvement, and so was reverted. As long as you continue to assume bad faith about other peoples' motives and refuse to acknowledge that your edits require large scale revisions to turn them into something usable in an encyclopedia, then your edits are likely to continue to be reverted.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
AWP-1
The lost distinction is the before America entered the war and over a year before the XB-29 first flew, the deployment plan was ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- And your point is...? September 1941 is before the US entered the war (and I wasn't the one who removed the explicit mention of pre-war plans anyway).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
are you writting for the public or for those that already know ? losing the distiction means that it is no longer evident. I was please that you were resourceful enough to go to Craven & Cate...were I knew the plan was discussed. You did exactly what I set you up to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:C19C:39AD:3E86:E31C:6E07 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I have already said above, I did not remove explicit mention of the plans being pre-entry of the US to WW2. You comment "You did exactly what I set you up to do" indicates that you are not here to discuss improvements to the encyclopedia but to engage in point scoring - please do not post to my talk page again.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Legal threat by Philm540 and various IP6s
You are central to the case against Philm540 and his Pennsylvania IPs presented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_against_Nigel_Ish_by_block-evading_IP. Please feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging the admins who have blocked Philm540's IPs: Nick-D and MilborneOne. You are free to comment, and especially to link to previous discussions about this guy. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:No. 9 Squadron RAF#Citations -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
|
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your recent expansion of No. 57 Squadron RAF. Thankyou! - I don't have those books!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
|
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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Wanamaker Triplane
Will add the cite for you, someone relayed the story to me once that Porte landed the aircraft heavily resulting in the damage, but I have not seen anything in detail about the event other than above. CheersRstory (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Scrolling tables
Hello,
You have removed the additional script which I've provided. It does not interrupt the accessibility on devices of non-css/java screenreaders or ipad at the desktop mode. However, MOS:SCROLL does allow the usage of scrolling tables when the accessibility on portable devices were fully ensured or guaranteed. Since that is the case, why it should be removed? Bouquey (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- MOS strongly discourages the use of scrolling or collapsed tables at all for content. Please don't do it.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's accessible on portable devices and MOS:SCROLL does allow it, if that requirement is ensured and fulfilled. Also, it's not up to you to determine whether it should be removed or not. Thanks Bouquey (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." This is a fairly clear prohibition for content that is not included elsewhere in an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, let's cherry pick! /s Seriously, without context, it's worthless: "When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." That's definitely not a clear prohibition, also, it's quite dismaying how you going from "discourages the use" to a " clear prohibition". A further click on the link actually even explains how to disable and to avoid invisible content by rechecking it. If you have experienced some problems in accessing to the article, then you could have told me before; as we could seek for a solution. Since I do not have any problem accessing WP with my iPad or iPhone and Windows tablet, there must be some personal and/or emotional repulsion against it. Bouquey (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." This is a fairly clear prohibition for content that is not included elsewhere in an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's accessible on portable devices and MOS:SCROLL does allow it, if that requirement is ensured and fulfilled. Also, it's not up to you to determine whether it should be removed or not. Thanks Bouquey (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
RE Soko G-4 Super Galeb
I don't understand why you reverted my edits on the Soko G-4 Super Galeb. I only removed the reference to Yugoslavia and the Yugoslavian Air Force as they no longer exist. If you think I should have simply added references to Bosnia-Herzegovina, that's fine, but please contact me in future if you have problems with my editing of any article - it would be much appreciated.
- The articles cover the whole of the history of the aircraft, not just the situation now, and so it is not appropriate for the infobox to ignore by far the largest user, even though it no longer exists.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Fury
I am sure you know better than I, but wondered why the Tabor stays and Bristol goes?80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Strictly in accordance with the criteria I am inclined to agree with you about the Tabor, but someone added it, perhaps on the basis it was a triplane?80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are far too many See also links on most of these flying boat articles anyway. Certainly they would be strongly objected to if anyone tried to take the article through the FA process.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please point me to the FA process so I can take a view?80.229.34.113 (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are far too many See also links on most of these flying boat articles anyway. Certainly they would be strongly objected to if anyone tried to take the article through the FA process.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Tribal-class DD description
I've drafted what I intend to use as the basic description for all of the Tribals at HMS Mohawk (F31). This will be modified as necessary to suit the Commonwealth ships and expanded for the longer-lived ships. Let me know what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable, although there is a little more detail on the ship's machinery and armament at HMS Gurkha (F20). I would think that either description would do, and that every article doesn't need to be the same. In fact it's probably better that they are at least slightly different as long as they convey the correct information.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's always a question on how to distribute technical information between the individual ship article and the class article. I tend to save stuff like gun performance, boiler pressures & temps, and fire-control stuff for the class article as I think that that sort of detail isn't really relevant to what the ship did, which is the focus of its article. Conversely the class article covers only the highlights of each ship's career and skips stuff like refits, minor damage and the like in favor of technical detail. And just to keep things nice and simple we've got varying displacements and draughts for these ships with Whitley quoting legend figures, English giving data from when Zulu was inclined after completion (probably the most reliable data I've seen so far, IMO), Friedman a few tons off from English, and Lenton 80-odd tons over English and Friedman. Haven't looked to see what Hodges gives, but I'm gonna wait until March arrives before proceeding much further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a fair point that aa lot of the detail can go in the class article, although I could argue that the amount of detail in the individual ship articles may vary due to the context - for the ships lost to high level bombing off Norway, fire control and the lack of proper high angle armament is more relevant than for others in the class.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you entirely about the context and was unsure how much detail about the AA to put in as a base for all of the ships. I finally decided that the universal replacement of 'X' mount was a good place to mention its limitations, although I'm still not sure if I've set it up enough so that a casual reader can readily grasp things. I think maybe I should add a bit about the Tribals being the first British destroyers with an AA director, but I'm not sure that the elevation limitation is all that relevant except for those ships lost to dive bombers. What do you think?
- It's a fair point that aa lot of the detail can go in the class article, although I could argue that the amount of detail in the individual ship articles may vary due to the context - for the ships lost to high level bombing off Norway, fire control and the lack of proper high angle armament is more relevant than for others in the class.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's always a question on how to distribute technical information between the individual ship article and the class article. I tend to save stuff like gun performance, boiler pressures & temps, and fire-control stuff for the class article as I think that that sort of detail isn't really relevant to what the ship did, which is the focus of its article. Conversely the class article covers only the highlights of each ship's career and skips stuff like refits, minor damage and the like in favor of technical detail. And just to keep things nice and simple we've got varying displacements and draughts for these ships with Whitley quoting legend figures, English giving data from when Zulu was inclined after completion (probably the most reliable data I've seen so far, IMO), Friedman a few tons off from English, and Lenton 80-odd tons over English and Friedman. Haven't looked to see what Hodges gives, but I'm gonna wait until March arrives before proceeding much further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
|
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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Reverting legitimate edits
Hi Nigel, I noticed that you reverted my changes on the B-24 Liberator page.
Perhaps you might consider reading the policy on revert only when necessary. According to the policy, when users make well intended changes (as mine was) you should avoid using reverts. The policy notes that reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant and that it drives away editors. It strongly recommends making further improvements to the article that incorporate the changes instead of reverting.
I also note that your reason for reverting was that the introduction should be a summary of the article. Reading through the Liberator article, the introduction is not a summary of the article as it is with many other aircraft. Much of the content does not appear anywhere in the article. Perhaps you could improve this article by writing an introduction that is a better summary, and moving the other content into the body.
I have reinstated my changes, as that is where that fact fits in the article as it is written at the present time, but please feel free to move it elsewhere in the article if you feel it fits better there.
Cheers 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzie (talk • contribs)
- Your addition was a classic piece of trivia. It was and is entirely unsuitable for the lede section of the article, which is intended as a summary of the whole article. If this factoid doesn't seem to fit anywhere else other than the lede section, it suggests that it is unsuitable to be included in the article at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Ruger Mini-14 RFC
Greetings. I'm putting a Request for Comment on the Ruger Mini-14 Talk Page regarding the debate about the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre image. In relation to the RFC, I'll be reinserting the image so that commenters can see it in context. Please leave it there for at least 2 weeks to see if comments accrue. Tapered (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've also posted a notification of the RFC @ the point of view noticeboard. Tapered (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)