User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archives/2021/October

Gentle nudge

Seeing your activity on Yawl, just a gentle nudge on mixing citation styles in an article: WP:CITE has in its third paragraph "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout...". These days I am possibly persuaded that the sfn system has better results in a finished article - but swapping from one system to another is, it seems, not allowed without a discussion on the talk page first - then (on achieving consensus) a concerted effort to change all the refs in one go. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're quite right, my dislike of the rp method took over. I'll leave it be.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. I am tempted to pick Yawl as a test of my abilities to convert to sfn referencing (which would, of course, contravene the guidance I have summarised above). Since much of my editing consists of rewrites of articles with substantial problems, I have been reluctant to change styles in the past - but a big rewrite is probably a reasonable excuse - especially if a near absence of references is one of the problems. (I don't think I have identified an sfn referenced article yet that meets my criteria for needing a rewrite - don't know what that tells us all.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sfn is just a way of automating manual short cites, though manual cites handle authorless works better than sfn does. So far it looks good at Yawl, the Suffolk and Norfolk reference could be converted too and more precise cites used for the five instances of it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

M18 Hellcat thanks

Hi,

Thanks a lot for your work on M18 Hellcat recently, and also for pointing me at {{full citation needed}}. I've now redirected {{link needed}} at it. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US military utility vehicles

Template:US military utility vehicles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cavalryman (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:LST-1 class tank landing ship boats ‎

I notice you have added citation needed to this template. The official publication on Landing Craft ONI 226 published 1944 has a diagram showing either 6 LCVP and a LCT 5 or 2 LCVP and a LCT 6 as the capacity. I'm not sure how to integrate this into a template Lyndaship (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's just putting a manual reference in using <ref> </ref> code. You can add a Reflist within the noinclude section of the template if desired. My concern with the ONI226 reference is that it might only apply to US operated ships and that those loaned to the RN would have a different set of landing craft, likely LCAs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

List of cruisers - removal of boldface

Look, I have no problem with correcting MoS violations. However, you are deleting a large amount of information, you are not preserving it in an alternative way. Your removal of boldface without providing an alternative is vandalism. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You've created a MoS violation - the onus is on you to provide an alternate. Assuming that whether a ship saw combat or not is important. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Really. First, I created nothing: this page was this way before I ever read it. Second, several Wikipedians more experienced than myself have been fine with the page as it is. Third Assuming that whether a ship saw combat or not is important. is as far as I know is your opinion Please do not repeat this particular edit without further discussion. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I put the text into an MoS compliant form, you took it out of compliance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You also removed the cross that denoted the wartime sinking of the Lexington. You are acting like someone who cares more about the result than the cooperative process to get the best result.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia MoS: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have created a section on that article's Talk page to discuss this (please see Talk:List of cruisers of the United States Navy#MoS: Inappropriate use of boldface). Please comment. I will be soliciting others to comment. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've been away on family matters. I just joined the WT:SHIPS & WT:MILHIST projects. In a few days after I get used to them I will "pop the question" regarding this issue. I must say that the comments so far are strongly influencing me in your direction. I think that as a newbie I will likely benefit from "popping the question" and seeing the response.

BTW, I had reverted 2 other changes you made. I haven't noticed if you put them back, but if you haven't please go ahead and put them back in. Thanks!Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work to improve Lockheed P-38 Lightning! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)