Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starter library

[edit]

Hey Ed, I've been meaning to ask you if there is a set of "core books" you would recommend to someone who is interested in American warship history. I've always been fascinated, but I have no books to speak of. I'm particularly interested in pre-World War I and World War I battleships. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifically for the US, Friedman's U.S. Battleships: A Design History is technical but easily the best design history you will find, but he has little to nothing on each ship's service history. For each ship, the only overarching/all-encompassing work is DANFS, which is all online but can be biased. Jerry W. Jones has written a pretty good book on the US' battleship operations in WWI, and although I haven't seen it myself, Yoenit has made good use of Reilly/Scheina's American Battleships 1886–1923: Predreadnought Design and Construction. Some sites online can give some cool information, like [1]. Two others I haven't seen myself but have heard good things about is McBride's Technological Change and the United States Navy, 1865–1945 and Alden's American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the U.S. Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet (the latter used in USS Texas (1892) by User:Sturmvogel 66. That's the best I have for you! I'm going to leave messages with a British naval historian (User:Simon Harley) and my friend at the NHHC to see if they have any suggestions as well.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I make heavy use of Burt's books on British BBs for WWI ships, plus Parkes as a general source. Both are more design oriented, but Burt has brief operational histories.There's not much out there for the French, Italian and Austro-Hungarian ships. The Russians are covered by McLaughlin. See any FA or GAs for ships of the relevant navies or my library on my homepage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I look forward to possibly contributing to some ship articles. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We'd love to have you! :-) Feel free to join WP:OMT as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
By "pre-World War I and World War I battleships" do you mean U.S.N. ones? If so, these are some interesting sources. Friedman is the obvious choice as Ed has pointed out. Besch, Michael D. (2002). A Navy Second to None: The History of U.S. Naval Training in World War I. Westport, CT. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-31909-X. While it's not "The History" it gives valuable insights on the training of battleship sailors (which a lot of pre-dreadnoughts were involved in). Jones' book on U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I I'm afraid to say isn't particularly rigorous and rather perversely doesn't actually cover all U.S. battleship operations in World War I. It's still a must-read though. For a list of U.S. Warships in print see Silverstone, Paul H. (1970). U.S. Warships of World War I. London: Ian Allan. ISBN 1-7110-0095-6 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. If you want more on the British angle, holler. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Simon! Andy, my NHHC friend also recommended Reilly and Scheina's American Battleships 1886–1923, along with Bauers and Roberts' Register of Ships of the US Navy, 1775-1990 Major Combatants. Hope you have enough ideas to go off of now. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Simon and everyone else. To clarify, yes I do mean USN ships. For example, I would love to work on USS Arizona (BB-39). --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll be sure to ping you when Sturm and I collab on it this summer in time for the 7 December TFA. :-) There's a whole host of books out there on Arizona – I have Stillwell's Battleship Arizona; An Illustrated History, but we'll probably need more than that, and your help would be welcome! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

[edit]

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

Kudpung's RfA

[edit]

Hi Ed. I hope you don't mind, but I'm un-indenting Keepscases' vote. I agree with Chzz: the crats are generally very good at weighing votes appropriately. Obviously I disagree with Keepscases and think Kudpung would be a fine admin, but a visit to Keepscases' talk page and Kudpung's RfA criteria page should make clear the nature of the dispute between the two of them. If you feel strongly about indenting, you're welcome to undo my revert; I won't take offense or revert again. Best, 28bytes (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with it! I don't feel all that strongly about it. Thanks for leaving a message, too – it's much appreciated and a courtesy many would not extend. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Davenport, Iowa

[edit]

Hi, do you have time at all to look over this article, and tell me what needs to be fixed before I renominate it for FA? Thanks, CTJF83 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't really have the time. My advice is to read the article aloud to yourself – you should catch 95% of any prose errors that way. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok CTJF83 21:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese BCs

[edit]

Hey Ed (and Cam and Sturm, who are presumably watching Ed's page), I created a template for the FT that is now ready here. Feel free to change it for the actual nomination, it's just an idea. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Parsec, I'll try to nom it tonight! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Now we just need to think about the FT for all the battlecruisers. I suppose we need to get the battlecruiser article itself up to GA first, but I'm not relishing that task considering the moronic quibbles that we're gonna get over definitions. The Gneisenau class and the pocket battleships look to be problems there. I can make sweeping judgements about what is and isn't a BC myself, but that doesn't matter diddly-squat. We need to quote somebody about why those German ships are sometimes called BCs. I can provide a quote about how the change in British terminology to cover fast battleships, but I can't stretch that to cover the Gneisenau class, even though that's exactly what I think was going on. I don't really have an explanation for the pocket BBs being considered BCs, except maybe through their shared purposes of commerce-raiding. But that's totally unsupported and just a guess on my part.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Remember that the German BCs are already an FT, so there really should be no problems. I only received one or two questions on why Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were not included, and this note was enough of an answer for them. I don't foresee any problems with either the Scharnhorsts or the Deutschlands (I've never seen any RS refer to the latter as BCs). Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I could be imagining it, but I feel like I read a source that discussed whether they were battlecruisers or not and concluded that they were constructed as capital ships... Maybe Garzke/Dulin or Whitley? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Constance (1880)

[edit]

Are you working on this article at the moment? I'm currently trawling through The Times and am finding more info to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I only put that there so the article creator would know it needed to be expanded more. Have a blast :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Since when is it proper to close an AfD after 1 day? Despite what the essay SNOW says. CTJF83 11:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Errm, since always. This is one of those decisions that the community elected admins to take. Admins get to take these decisions because they are trusted by the community to do so. Anyway, despite your assertion of a lack of indication of notability, a search in the right place uncovered plenty of info on Constance and her short career. Said search did not take 7 days either! Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
First, there were nine !keep votes after one day. Second, there's no need to keep a dramafest open when the outcome is certainly going to be "keep." I figured someone would improve it soon – there are always sources out there for commissioned warships of major navies, and quite often there are sources even for minor navies. P.S. thanks for Mj for a major improvement! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That does look good! I just find it puzzling that I get busted on RfA for closing an AfD a few hours early, and you close it several days early with no issues....oh well. CTJF83 19:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Everyone's fickle. In general, there will always be someone mad about a NAC if it isn't 99% uncontroversial and 100% by the book. I've actually been getting some flack for closing other, less flexible, things too early, so don't think it's only you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on

[edit]

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

  1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
  2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
  3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman numerals

[edit]

Maybe I'm way off here, but I always thought that numbers from 50 to 100 followed the normal L[N-50] convention; for example, 59 would be "LIX", not "LVIV". Is that not the case? Kirill [talk] [prof] 08:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no, you're right. I screwed up once awhile back and stopped double-checking to make sure my numerals were right. :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Times

[edit]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Help moving a page

[edit]

Ed, could you help me out and move Felisberto Caldeira Brant, the Marquis of Barbacena to Felisberto Caldeira Brant, Marquis of Barbacena (without the "the")? Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Great! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

[edit]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NYT

[edit]

Hey Ed, Sturm asked if there was anything in the NYT archives on SMS Hansa (1872) during the GA review. I thought you might be able to lend a hand, as you have much more experience with the NYT archives than I do. If not, no worries. BB-PB (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I was really confused until I followed your userpage link! Here's the article list, I think.[2] If you need the link in the future, it's here – click "advanced", set the date range, and search for whatever ship you want. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that might happen ;) At some point, I'm going to change this account's sig, but I haven't gotten around to it yet, as you can see. Thanks for the help with the NYT - I'll have to bookmark that link. BB-PB (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for purposely causing confusion. :P You're welcome re the NYT. Their archives are normally pretty easy to navigate, although they don't give an article's page number anymore, which is rather frustrating. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

That's very kind of you. You made me blush. Literally. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very, very welcome. Just know that what you do on this site is appreciated by many, even if they don't always say it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

[edit]

Thanks Ed, this means a lot, coming from you. However adminship is not really my cup of tea, and I already spend (too) much of my spare time in WP, editing articles. If I became an admin, I'd probably end up spending even more time here, and my girlfriend would kill me ;). Constantine ✍ 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, darn. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I can sympathize with that, although I think you should tell your girlfriend you have more important people on here. :P But seriously, if you ever would like or need a co-nomination for an RfA, feel free to ask me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing Fridays article for 25 March

[edit]

--Guerillero | My Talk 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011

[edit]


This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Government

[edit]

Greetings. I noticed that you are one of the few members of WikiProject United States Government that are still active so I wanted to ask you a question. It appears that this project is mostly inactive aside from what the members might be doing independently. I was considering suggesting that this project be pulled in under United States and wanted to solicit comments from some of this projects members before doing so. As with Washington DC and the others the project would for the most part maintain its own independence but I believe this would benefit both projects. What do you think about this? --Kumioko (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do whatever you want with it, I haven't participated there in years (as you can tell by my teenager-ish "omg I got a 5 on the AP Gov't exam" comment...). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL ok thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

[edit]

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your involvement in WP:NEWT I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I really would love to, but I simply have too much on my plate already. If I can do anything to help that doesn't require a large time commitment, please give me another holler, but I can't commit to this. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Will do; thanks anyway! Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your quibble

[edit]

I replied to you at Jacko's ACR. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks!

[edit]

hi ed17, just thought I'd say thanks for the proper welcome from the other day, I sent jasper a mail pointing out that the nonsense he posted was unhelpful at best, and asking him to keep away from me in future! Now all I have to do is figure out how this place works, been using it for years, but only got round to joining now. thanks again for the welcome, Fiona — Preceding unsigned comment added by FionaMcK (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! You're very welcome. I've already had a discussion with Jasper, and I think he sees what he was doing wrong. Feel free to ask me for any help! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

[edit]

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sniff

[edit]

No replies. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh damn, didn't see you replied. Gimme a dew minutes to eat but I will get back to you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Take your time, I'm fine. WT:RFA is going great, improbably. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
One more thing ... see WP:MOSNUM#Non-breaking spaces and WT:MHC#Damn nbsp's. I didn't see any nbsp's in the first few dates at ARA Rivadavia. Sandy left a note in the edit history at HMS Speedy that the nbsp's needed to be fixed, and Shimgray fixed them. I really haven't paid any attention to the issues here; I was assuming people had a script they could run, it seems annoying to me to do them by hand. Do you know a script? Do you know a script guy? - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Lightmouse used to do that with his script, and I want to say Malleus has used it too? Or was it Tony1? I'm 95% sure I've seen someone doing it. Not recently, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Credo accounts

[edit]

Would you mind taking a second look and reconsider your decision to close the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Credo accounts MFD. Please let the MfD run for the full seven days to allow the Wikipedia community to discuss issues surrounding the Wikipedia:Credo accounts WikiProject, including having a WikiProject to advertise on behalf of the subscription-based online reference content company, and to come to a consensus as to what to do. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To jump in, that speedy keep looks like a very good decision to me. I'd suggest that you take this matter up at Wikipedia talk:Credo accounts if you feel that having this page is unsuitable (I note that you don't seem to have discussed this there). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. Uzma, I will not look at it again, and I will speedy close any MfD until you discuss your concerns on the talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ship names (cont)

[edit]

Hi Ed,

The nice thing about the bot is it can save a lot of manual work in formatting. Could you maybe review User:Snottywong/Ship classes/Hyphen 1 and the 2ary lists at the top of that page, and tell us which names shouldn't be italicized? Just put ||x or something after the proposed name; I can then move them to a separate list, and when we run the bot it will only italicize names in the to-italicize lists. Or if that's too much work, just note them on the talk page. (I assume "Standard-type X" shouldn't be italicized either.) It would be nice to have the titles properly formatted.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, probably not. That would require me to review every single one of those articles to see if the lead ship's name is the same as the class name. Most classes are named after the lead ship, hence the italics. However, some were named after a theme, like the River class destroyer or County class cruiser, so they don't get italicized.
I got down to "Alexandrit class minesweeper" in about 15 minutes and came up with Admiral class battlecruiser, Admiral class battleship, and Admiralen class destroyer that should not be italicized. I'm not sure on Akula class submarine, as no submarine was named "Akula," but it was a NATO reporting name. (it doesn't get italicized) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Sounds like a real pain. I don't want to review them all either! Maybe you could add a note to this effect on the project page, so the editor programming the bot understands what's involved? — kwami (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, a bit. :-) Adding a note now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a look at User:Snottywong/Ship classes/List 3? It's a short list, in that the only long part is a single pattern, "(German) Type nn X", but this page has the ones I'm most unsure of. There are also "German Type nn-class X" articles on another page, and I wonder if they should have the same format as the "German Type nn X" articles: does adding or removing "class" mean anything? — kwami (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe all of those should be left alone, as that is their real name (I think). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do you remove Standard type battleship from the list? It's not a "type battleship". — kwami (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not a ship class – it's an article similar to dreadnought. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
But it's still an attributive phrase, (standard-type) battleship, which is why X-class Y is hyphenated. Not per SHIPNAME, but simply as English. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, this is an "oh duh" moment. I'll move it myself. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's why I was thinking things like Type I submarine should be hyphenated. — kwami (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The literal name of them is "Type I" -- we've added "submarine" for an identifier. A hyphen would distort the real name. :) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks.
As for the idea that italicization makes en dashes redundant, that of course only works for classes named after ships. Take Passenger-Only Fast Ferry class ferry": would "Passenger-Only Fast Ferry-class ferry" be unintelligible, or are the caps enough to parse it? — kwami (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's intelligible. I understand the argument for dashes, but we just don't need them. It leads to way too many move wars. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ship Renaming

[edit]

I do not see how the followng statement on Wikipedia:Bot_requests#hyphenation_of_ship_classes could have led you to believe that I support the change from XXXX class to XXXX-class.

This is not a good idea. If it is adopted, we will then get into fine distinctions between hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes in article titles. These distinctions do not exist in normal English; though the may exist in the world of type setters. It leads to utterly lame edit wars and disputes (see for example Talk:Mexican-American War#Revisit requested move). It has no advantages.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please could you amend your comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Bot_request.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We all make mistakes – I read through it too quickly. My apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NNHC enquiry

[edit]

Thanks for offering to do this, Ed. To clarify, do you plan to ask your friend if email is acceptable for an enquiry, or make the actual enquiry (I assume the former, but let me know if you need any more details if the latter is the case). -- saberwyn 08:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I sent him a message via Facebook (I "met" him via their Facebook page), giving him both links. I didn't say too much more because I'm not sure if he is the one to ask. I think he'll give me a name and email if he isn't. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sweet. Sleep well :P -- saberwyn 09:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Saberwyn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- saberwyn 11:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My next project

[edit]

Nah... not a ship. Blood all around yet none truly spilled, old beyond time yet still within our time. That is what it will be about. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If blood was being spilled, I'd have guessed A Song of Ice and Fire. If you were American, I'd guess the Army-Navy game. As it is... I have no idea. You and your riddles. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you

[edit]

LanceBarber (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/38&oldid=1144583451"