User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archives/2021/September

B-17 template

I noticed that you made several major edits to Template:B-17 family. While I thank you for your good intentions, this edit doesn't sit well with me as, in my opinion, it made the template far too condensed and is a jumbled mess. The reason I had created all the rows was to differentiate the designation sequences that the aircraft was part of (the PB was not in the same sequence as the B-17 and B-40, so this one especially can cause confusion). Furthermore, I don't see a need to emphasize in the template that the B-38 used alternate engines or that the B-40 was a gunship, since the reader would find that out when they click the links. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're prepared to group transports separately you are telling the reader that they are transports. the YB-40 didn't carry any bombs so differentiation beforehand prevents WP:Surprise. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The grouping of the B-40 in the bombers row means that it was designated as a bomber, not necessarily used as such. For all we know, production B-40s may have been intended to carry bombs, which would make it's "B" designation make sense. Perhaps it was a cover designation, but we can't assume that it was. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Average reader doesn't know that the B comes from USAAF designation but may guess bomber. The YB-40 could barely keep up with its sisters when it was only laded with those extra guns and ammo. And that ammo was stored in the bomb bay.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It's still not entirely out of the question, though. The gunship versions of the B-25, especially the cannon-armed B-25G/H, had a very limited bomb load, but they still could carry bombs nonetheless. While the XB-40 and YB-40 prototypes could not carry bombs (they were modified from production B-17s), the USAAF may have intended a refined production version to carry a limited bomb load. The fact that the B-40 designation was newly assigned for this variant (as opposed to the gunship variant keeping its original designation like the B-25) seems to strongly suggest that this was the case, especially since other dedicated gunships were assigned "A" designations (i.e. A-38). - ZLEA _T\^C 22:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

ROC/UKWMO posts

Several of us are working through List of Royal Observer Corps / United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation Posts (A–E) etc. fixing wikilinks to disambiguation pages and unrelated articles (Alexandria, Chard, etc.) Please can you check our work and fill in any we've missed? Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please be careful when fixing articles

Hey.

I've noticed you often do small fixes to articles, like you just did with the R-1 tank article I've just published.

Your fixes, however, have actually led to different errors. For example, when you resized the images, some of them became too small, while others broke the text's design. Also, you changed "four Ms merged together" to just "four Ms merged", which doesn't sound right in the context.

It's not the first time I see such things happen following your edits. For example, on Hetzer, you once broke the italics' layout in the lede.

Please don't take this message as offense. I appreciate the improvements you want to bring to Wikipedia, but I believe you should be more careful when doing them to avoid such things from happening again.

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ive commented on image sizes on the article talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I am noticing that the use of a tool, ReFill 2 is introducing haphazard errors of authorship and date of publication during your edits. For example, authors are getting anonymized: the commanding general of DEVCOM, (General John George), as well as another commanding general, Dennis Via, also Arpi Dilanian and Matthew Howard, also Capt. Steve Draheim and Maj. Paul Santamaria, also Andrew Eversden, also Colin Clark, also Gary Sheftick, also Haley Britzky, also Theresa Hitchens, also staff operations such as APG News or RDECOM Research Laboratory Public Affairs, also Devon Suits, also Joseph Lacdan, also Sean Kimmons, also Theresa Hitchens (getting renamed), also David Vergun, also Terri Moon Cronk, also Kelsey Atherton, also Michael Howard, also Karen Diane Kurtz (ASA (ALT)) and Steven Y. Lusher, also Richard Simonetti, also Craig A. Spisak, also Audra Calloway, also Nancy Jones-Bonbrest, also Team White Sands Organizations, also RCCTO (the successor to the rapid capability office RCO), also The Decker-Wagner Army Acquisition Review (a highly influential document), also Argie Sarantinos-Perrin, also Jacqueline M. Hames, also Maj. Brett Lea (who is being replaced by a Casino Spam link), also Tisha Swart-Entwistle, also William Griffen, also Maj. Gen. Maria R. Gervais, also Bob Purtiman, also Karen Flowers, also Caitlin O'Neill, also Thomas Brading, also Bruce Jette, also Hannah Wiley , also Daniel Goure, also Paul McLeary, also Amy McCullough, also Ed Worley, also Connie Lee, also Jen Judson, also Jon Harper, also Matt Beinart, also Ben Wolfgang, Corey Dickstein, Bob Purtiman, Will Reinier, Jonathan Koester, Eric Adams, Richard Whittle, Steve Trimble, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., also are getting anonymized; Sydney Freedberg is getting renamed to Aaron Mehta, or Riad Kawaji, or Brad Williams; the authors of an Army Directive are getting renamed to a date; an author Joyce M. Conant is getting renamed to a title, the list goes on. The worst one is the introduction of a spam link. Perhaps it might be appropriate to reconsider the use of reFill 2. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AfD

The close was first reverted by the nominator when they should have followed closechallenge. The closer seems to be under the impression that thet had to undo their close while since it was being reviewed. Since when is that done? Now it's being reviewed on one page and still taking !votes on another? And what happens to those subsequent !votes if the close is upheld by the review? - wolf 07:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild I have deleted my deletion review request, so that won't happen. Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Then FormalDude's close should stand. You can't cry 'foul' to undo a close of your nom just because it didn't go your way. You should either accept the close or let it go to review. - wolf 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I undid my close strictly as a courtesy. I found Mztourist's request to have an admin close it reasonable. I've reopened the deletion review request because I think input from others will be beneficial and I don't believe that's the proper way to archive it either. ––FormalDude talk 07:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: the review is still showing as closed. Also, still waiting for a reply from GraemeLeggett who has been actively editing in the past 7 hours, this is your talk page after all, and your revert is part of this mess. - wolf 18:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The review has been closed by an administrator since I decided to revert my closure. At this point the AfD is staying open until an admin closes it. ––FormalDude talk 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: It shouldn't have been undone in the first place (or the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time after). Non-admins can and do close AfDs, and a this AfD should be no different. What's happening to this AfDs is just an example of the ongoing problems with the AfD process in general and why it needs to be fixed. - wolf 20:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably better that if you want to continue this, it should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_review GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - wolf 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Norwich

Hi, could you clarify why the splitting proposal template at the top of the article needed to be removed? I would have thought it could have stayed up longer, considering how quickly people responded when I put it up. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Spotted it lower down, not entirely sure it's a good idea to have it there. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a more precise notice, but you're right that it is less noticeable. I've found a template that works at top of page too and added that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, many thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)