Talk:Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby

Book

I have on my desk a paperback book of postcards called "The German Raid on Scarborough, December 16th, 1914", published by E.T.W. Dennis and Sons, Ltd., London and Scarborough. If it's out of copyright I'll scan some of the photos in. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Map.

A map would greatly improve this important article. JRPG (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you can find three maps relating this subject. There could be more things adopted from Gary Staffs translation regarding the real targets of the attack. It would improve the article for sure.

--Andreas P 15 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas, do you know the copyright status of the maps and translation? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Squeezed a North Sea map in and moved other illustrations to make room, tidied further reading and external links. Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Philafrenzy, isn't this trivia?Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991007055519/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWnavy.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWnavy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Moved things around to be consistent with headers and did a bit of a ce, happy to discuss. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Oops I hadn't noticed that they were German guns. Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The article isn't far from GA class; would you be interested in working on it together sometime in the next couple of months to get it ready for a nom?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I can try but I'm working full-time so can't promise. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, but maybe I can work it up with whatever I have to hand and then you can add whatever you've got, or vice-versa. No rush, either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Grand Fleet

Hello. I have been enjoying looking at and trying to help a little with this nice and interesting article. Well done to its main editors.

I'm a little confused, Keith-264, by your ES here where you say For such an incomplete article do we really have to keep doing this? – is that directed at me and if so, what does it mean? I feel as if I must have transgressed against something about which I missed the memo. Keep doing what?? My motivation was only what I said in the edit summary and I stand by it ... indeed I was pleased to see that you kept the idea of saying it was the British side, but I don't understand what your ES was trying to tell me. Clarification would be most welcome. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No it's to everyone involved in the recent flutter of activity. There isn't much point when it needs to look more like Action off Lerwick. When I read it again last night it was obvious that several subject headers aren't really right for quite a bit of the text in them but until omissions are rectified there isn't much that can be done. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Aha right, thanks Keith-264. So you're thinking pounds not pennies – get the bigger issues sorted and expand it to be more like that other (very fine) article, and don't worry about the smaller stuff at the moment? Is that right? I can certainly live with that. I don't have the skills or knowledge to help with a big expansion but I can certainly stay off the trivial edits and watch with admiration while others sort it out! That being the case I am also going to park my into/at query for now, and possibly for ever! Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, something should be done about its failings but a lot of the material being copy-edited would be expanded, re-written and integrated into other material with different citations in an article with (for example) a better division between description and explanation. In the absence of someone drastically altering the article something should be done rather than waiting on events but it's a pity that hard work can go to waste. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked Lerwick. Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Jrt989: Please relent, your appeals to authority are threadbare. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How are appeals to very relevant authorities on British English grammar "threadbare?" The only thing that is threadbare here is your repeated reverting of a change made by me and several other editors (e.g., @Pearlharborandmidway:, @Javelin89:, @Elmer Clark:) based on no authority at all except your own say-so. As I noted earlier, if you are convinced that there is a universal rule in British English grammar that one never puts a comma before a conjunction (which there patently is not), then provide a source for that assertion. Wikipedia is not built on the uncited, head-in-the-sand assertions of random editors--it is built on verifiable facts. Jrt989 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Relevant"? Come off it. If you want a source, try O level English Language 1978. I'd be grateful if you minded your manners as well, it will make it easier to reach consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to see you are still at this a year and a half later. Four different editors independently making this change is a blaringly obvious sign of consensus already. If you undo this change again, or continue making edits of this nature to other articles, I will open a discussion at WP:AN and make the possibly-unprecedented request to have you topic banned from making punctuation changes. Even if your 45-year-old pupil-oriented style guide does make this claim, which I cannot confirm, Wikipidia's style guidelines are not based on prescriptivism in general, nor on your O-Level English guide in particular - they're based on consensus, which you are blatantly flouting here. Please find other ways to contribute to the project besides adjusting commas to fit your idiosyncratic style preferences. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note that you removed our previous discussion about this from your talk page and its archives entirely, which I suppose is your right, but doesn't exactly speak to a good-faith approach to this topic. Restoring it here for added context and sources. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Since apparently the Cambridge Dictionary is not a sufficiently "relevant" source on English grammar rules for you, I'll simply add that the Wikipedia MOS also calls for commas around unnecessary appositives and makes no mention of an exception where the appositive comes before a conjunction. See MOS:COMMA. Jrt989 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is embarrassing, I'm being mobbed by Americans. ;O) why can't you face the facts? Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Wikipedia is NOT the place for your one-man crusade against a perfectly normal English formulation. If you care so much about this, you should spend your time petitioning UK language authorities about it instead, because as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, they uniformly disagree with you too. Gather consensus here first before making any further changes of this nature. And the constant, WP:CIVIL-skirting comments about America and Americans are not appreciated either. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL cf. The Mote and the Beam American English is different, this is a fact not an opinion. Your blustering about WP:Civil amidst demands and threats is embarrassing. There are no British language authorities only good and bad English usage and good and bad manners. WP:Consensus is not the same as a majority. I've tried to humour you but I'm bored. As I've pointed out, the article is in need of revision. Until I have the time it will have to wait. Apropos motes and beams, think on these solecisms, "Four different editors" what does different add to "four editors"? "And the constant...." you start a sentence with a conjunction? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are simply wrong about this. Multiple other editors and I have pointed you to many different sources saying so. You have provided none to support your stance. All the sources provided have been British, so your constant comments about the UK vs. US are wholly irrelevant to this discussion and are just serving as a way for you to dismiss others. You are arguing for a stance that has zero demonstrated support in any source anywhere, and is contrary to consensus. In Wikipedia terms, that simply makes you flatly wrong, and continuing to push said stance through your edits is disruptive and inappropriate. Making pedantic corrections to other users' wording in their talk page comments is yet another sign of bad faith and contrary to the attitude expected of editors here. I really don't know what else to tell you. When literally every other editor who has voiced an opinion or edited the relevant text disagrees, and they can support their side with sources and you cannot, it is time to give it a rest. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I commend WP:STICK to your attention and offer you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of Responsibility

I think that the analysis section of this page omits important information about Goodenough's failure to signal the presence of additional cruisers (p.346) and over-interprets the source (Massie, 2004) in assigning blame to Seymour without describing the circumstances in which the signal to HMS Nottingham was sent. JoelKAdolph (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)