User talk:Jinian/Archive May2005 Oct2007

Referring to ships

Hi, I was curious about this edit—why is it proper style to leave the article out when referring to ships? It reads a little awkward to my landlubber eyes. Thanks! Postdlf 08:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rokia Traoré

The article Rokia Traoré was not a speedy deletion candidate and should not have been deleted. It was listed on WP:VFU and was undeleted. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mount Whitney

Oops, sorry about that - I thought I was editing the LaSalle article that early in the morning :). User:Conradrock/sig

Deletion

I think you were a little hasty deleting IRCON International Ltd.. Unfortunately the site was down and I couldn't add further details to it. The company is a subsidiary of the Indian Railways and I had created the page to prevent a red link from showing up there. I agree that the choice of words could have been better though. I've restored the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

First Battle Cruiser Mystery

File:Yoga instructor.jpg

A yoga instructor performing an asana
Oops!<G>I guess I wanted AsaMa!!!
... Couldn't read my own scribbles!

Hi! You seem to be the right guy - I need help sorting out a reference to sister ships Asama, and Tokiwa, the former alledged to be built in 1899 by the British for the Japanese by noted historians Denis and Peggy Warner, in the authorative 'The Tide At Sunrise', about the Russo-Japanese War. They alledge on page 202 that these two ships were "the World's first battlecruisers" ('battle cruisers', per their text).

I'm not really the right person. Most of my time here is spent converting DANFS articles, primarily destroyers and older sailing vessels. The time period you're asking about is the time in between those and one I'm not very familiar with. Jinian 7 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Clicking our link gives a very different story— by nine years. ("The first battlecruisers were the Royal Navy's Inflexible, Invincible and Indomitable, all completed in 1908.")
I can probably sidestep the issue, but I wanted to do a article (sub-article), in part to organize myself, tentitively entitled Russo-Japanese War (Ships), and the issue will rise up in that for sure. There I hope to chart guns, displacement, et al in table form, plus list by deployment as organized in fleets, squadrons, et al. for the various naval battles of the R-JW.
I could also use some insight as to terms like 'First Class Cruiser', 'Second Class Cruiser', etc., which varies some author to author, but which my take (inference) is Armored Cruisers and Protected Cruisers respectively; so what I seek there is verification or repudiation of my surmise.

The different classes of ships "first class", etc., seem to be related to the earlier concept of a "first-rater". The higher the class, the more big/expensive/armed the ship. I believe this came from the practice of a "First rate ship" being the first of the line of battle, but I could be wrong.

Hope you enjoy the girl, err joke! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Also, I left a pointed note about misnomers on submarines in the Talk:USS Skipjack (SSN-585) that may apply elsewhere; and I'd love to help if this is a typical problem, but my plate is currently full with the R-JW upgrades. I'll be glad to advise. FrankB

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

Is there a list of lists of Ships? oR List of contries with ships, so I can find a Askold, ''Bayan'', ''Diana'', and ''Novik'' of Russia. (which is certainly not that link)! Thanks again -User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

You might try the ship's categories, but these ships don't seem to appear there. Jinian 7 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

USS Towers (DDG-9)

I'm a bit confused. You re-added the wikify notice to the article (which certainly made considerable sense; my error). Then, I did the wikify work and removed the wikify notice again (this time it made sense). Some time later, you rv'd all my wikify work and added armament. Ok, *boggle* :) I rv'd your removal of the wikify work, and added your armament edits in, with the wikify notice remaining off. Does that work for you? --Durin 1 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I made the edit on the older version. Apologies. Jinian 1 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Additional resources for ship information

Thought you might like to know about some additional resources I found for USN ships. The first one is at the Naval War College in Newport. At that facility, they have the 20th Century Ships History database [1]. If you then go to historical notes/ships notes you get this page [2]. Just type in a hull number, and voila! Missing history on some ships that it is difficult to find histories on (like, not in DANFS for example...which applies to many recent ships).

The other resource I found has ships characteristics, history, namesake info, etc. Can't use it, since it's not free license/PD. But there are photos on each ships page that are, so far as I've seen, always US Navy photos. Here's an example for USS Caron (DD-970) [3]. Note that the site is designed poorly; if you go to subsites on say, destroyers 1-100 you get a list of blue text on blue background. The ships are there, but you'll have to highlight them to see them. Uhg! Anyways, this site is a great resource for photos since they are USN photos.

I know you're part of the ships project, so I thought you might find the above useful. Enjoy. --Durin 1 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

USS St. Louis (LKA-116)

Nicely edited, thanks. I take it that you're going to add the category page?

Thanks. Yep, just did it. Jinian 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston class amphibious cargo ship

I understand your concern, and if you want to make Amphibious cargo ship into a disambig page, that's cool. Here's the history, so you know that I wasn't just going off half-cocked (we're actually in a better state now than when I started):

amphibious cargo ship was a word-for-word copy of the original content of USS Charleston (LKA-113)
USS Charleston (LKA-113) was a text dump of a mil page with no real context
I cleaned up USS Charleston (LKA-113)
I then cleaned up amphibious cargo ship
I then moved amphibious cargo ship to Charleston class amphibious cargo ship (redirect was automatic, I just updated it due to a double-move (case typo in first move))

Hope that all helps you to understand where I was coming from and why that made sense. Enjoy! -Harmil 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no... it was USS St. Louis (LKA-116) that the original Amphibious cargo ship was a duplicate of. USS Charleston (LKA-113) is one I created later. I just got confused in the above history of events. -Harmil 21:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morphine Nation

Carefully examining WP:CSD, I see no grounds for summarily deleting an article about a website on the grounds that the website lacks notability. What may have confused you is that there was recently a proposal along these lines, which failed to make it into the CSD. It reportedly gained only 58% support--somewhat short of a consensus

I have restored this article and its talk page. Please use VfD for articles that you believe should be deleted but do not qualify for speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Princeton (1897)

I uploaded a photo for this ship and placed it on the article page. The image that I uploaded comes from [4] which indicates that the ship is USS Princeton (PG-13). I'd like to suggest we move the article name to that name rather than the current name. Your thoughts? --Durin 16:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Trever (DD-339)

Thanks for your message. Firstly, I do want to clearly say that I appreciate your efforts in getting the information transferred.

To deal with the points you made. I understood the text to be saying that she was both laid down and built at the Mare Island Navy Yard (its geographical location, of course, present if the reader follows the link). Am I in error? Or would you prefer "laid down and built" explicitly?

The second point you made, the removal of the identity of her first commanding officer, happened because I couldn't see its relevance given she went through shakedown and then pretty much straight away was taken out of commission. However, if you judge that it should be included I'll stick his identity straight back in there.

It is true that was trying to sharply reduce the over-excited prose. I do try not to overdo things, but felt this article was far too gung ho, with much unnecessary and excessive padding. That said, I look forward to being edited myself so that a suitable NPOV can be reached!

Cheers,

I take your points and will go back over and aim for some colour in addition to the plain facts. My problem with this page can perhaps best be shown by the edit I just completed. The battle of Savo Island in '42 was a comprehensive defeat for the US/allied forces and resulted in a wholesale retreat -- but I wouldn't be able to gauge this from the text as it originally stood... That said, maybe I am being too ferocious. Will revise and be in contact.

Hi there. Just to let you know that I finished the last in the series of edits to this page. I hope I have reached a more acceptable level of colour; I have tried to amend only those parts that were clearly POV. Hope it's OK with you. Sliggy

The Rest of the Clemson Class destroyers

Just a quick note to let you know (if you hadn't already noticed) that I've worked through the rest of the Clemson class to try to clear up the bursts of POV that crop up, without losing their "colour" (per your earlier messages). I hope that my changes are OK by you. Sliggy

Bonhomme Richard

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Bonhomme Richard. Bovlb 19:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Destroyers

I just removed the Dealey class destroyer escort from the List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy since it was a DE instead of a DD; I didn't realize there was some light duping going on. I was going to concentrate on filling in the rest of the destroyer classes list, but is there anything else that needs more urgent attention? RasputinAXP talk * contribs 05:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Harmony

Why did you create an article for David B. Harmony? Surely he must be significant in some way other than the fact that he was a Rear Admiral...? - dcljr (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

really, really, really wide band

Wikipedia seems to think you deleted the page Ultra-wideband. I agree that we don't need it *and* Ultra wideband, but wouldn't a redirect WP:R be better? --DavidCary 01:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VADM Albert T. Church

If you've time, would you please take a look at the article on VADM Albert T. Church? Might need cleanup. Thanks so much. Joaquin Murietta 13:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Perkins

Sorry about that. I'm a little trigger-happy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 20:14

Response

Just so you know, I have responded per your request... Joshbaumgartner 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROCS Kee Lung (DDG-1801)

The information that "USS 995 Scott => ROCS 1801 Kee Lung" has been confirmed both in an internet post and by a soldier serving on this ship. The link should be changed. Hydonsingore 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the Navy General Headquarters and here is the reply. http://www.flickr.com/photos/51744539@N00/82378438/ They confirmed this information in the email. USS 995 Scott => ROCS 1801 Kee Lung; USS 993 Kidd => ROCS 1803 Tso Ying. Hydonsingore 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lyon

I see there was a USS Lyon (AP-71), launched in 1940, named for Mary Lyon. But there was also a Liberty ship, SS Mary Lyon, launched in 1943 (see List of Liberty ships, M). Do you know if both ships were named for the same person? Thanks. — Muffuletta 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mason

Yeah, didn't know about the policy of preemptive diambiguation. What had happened is that I'm writing a new article for Neil Armstrong (to replace the current one) and on Gemini 8, he and Dave Scott were recovered by the Leonard Mason. Long story short, couple of redlinks later I moved the paged to where it seemed the most logical for a land-lubber such as myself. :-) Evil Monkey - Hello 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dixon Porter(s)

OK, in sorting out David Porter, I got all the David Porter (musician) links disambiguated. The biographers who created the David Dixon Porter entries have their work cut out for them, though. In trying to sort out that huge mess, I found that there are in fact three David Dixon Porters, not the two listed previously: DDP Sr, his son DDP Jr, and a grandson DDP (who is not DDP III). All were of course military officers, amking things nice and complicated.

I made a second disambiguation page for all the David Dixon Porter references, in addition to the David Porter page. There are tons of links to both pages. I'm not sure if the article name I chose for the grandson is the best, so I will let the military historians here decide how to proceed. My interest was in the musician, and there's still a lot to do in that area. I'll be over there focusing my energies. Jokestress 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Find-A-Grave entries were the source I referenced. You might write to them about perpetuating mistakes. Sorry about the Colonel versus Major General-- that was based on his rank when he earned his Medal of honor. As you probably surmised, I stay away from military articles for a reason. Plenty of military historians here with more interest and knowledge than I. Jokestress 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub alarms

I invite your attention to User:the Epopt/Sub alarms. I've started the article in user-space because I fear it would not survive an AfD attack in its present form. Please make any (suggestions for) improvements you can think of. Thanks for your help! ➥the Epopt 21:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a request

When you speedy delete an article that has an attached AfD discussion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C6 (graffiti artist), please take the time to close off the AfD discussion, following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page. I have closed off the one I have cited, but plese do so in the future. Thanke! -- Saberwyn 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of ship class categories

Hello. Several of us in the Ships WikiProject are working to standardize the categorization of ship classes. Our goals are to streamline the current tangle of categories and give them all consistency. As an example, instead of having both Category:Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Arleigh Burke class destroyer the article listed under Category:Destroyer classes, we are standardizing things so that the article is listed at the top of the sub-category, then putting only the sub-category in Category:Destroyer classes.

For more information on the project, or to join in the fun yourself, please see the project page [5]. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Monarch

Thank you. While I know of Peabody, I did not know about his transatlantic trip.--Anthony.bradbury 19:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Category:Ships by country

Jinian, I was hoping to get your opinion on how we can manage the cleanup of Ships by country. It's currently a mess, split between categorization by country and categorization by navy. For example, we have Category:Battleships of the United States but Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy. We have Category:Chilean Navy ships and Category:Naval ships of Chile, which have no overlapping content.

I wrote up a proposal in table format here: User:TomTheHand/Ship category proposal.

I know that you favor categorization by navy instead of categorization by country. I believe there are a few disadvantages to that plan. First, in the majority of cases each country has only had one navy, so I believe it's unnecessary to separate the navy from the country in most cases. Second, in some cases I believe we would want to keep a country's different navies in one category. For example, Germany's navy went through three different names in the first half of the 20th century but it was a single entity. I don't think separating its ships by navy would be a good idea.

On the other hand, ships of the United States Navy and ships of the Confederate States Navy should certainly be separate; I agree with you entirely there.

In my proposal above, I would insert separation by navy under the (Ship type) of (country) category, and I would separate by navy only when necessary. For example, Battleships of the United States would not have a navy subcat. Ships would be listed directly under that cat. However, Ironclads of the United States would have USN and CSN subcats, and ships would be listed under those subcats.

Another possibility might be to have separation by navy occur at the (ship purpose) of (country) level. For example, Ships of the United States might have subcategories like Passenger ships, United States Navy ships, and Confederate States Navy ships. We could possibly have a single German Navy cat to unite the Kaiserliche Marine, Reichsmarine, and Kriegsmarine. I think if you separate them they lose value. Kriegsmarine is equivalent to "World War II ships of the German Navy," so if that's what you wanted, that's where you'd go; if we separate by navy there'd be no way to look at the whole history of the Germany Navy at a glance. I believe separation by navy should be used to divide two separate entities, like the USN and CSN, or East German and West German navies, but it shouldn't be used to divide different eras of the same navy.

I would appreciate your input. As with Ship classes in the past, I feel the status quo is unacceptable because it's an unorganized, inconsistent mess. However, I'm absolutely willing to be flexible on this; I see advantages and disadvantages in categorization by country vs. navy. I'll argue my side but implement the consensus. If you disagree with me, I would appreciate it if you could come up with an alternate proposal for the Ships by country structure. TomTheHand 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jinian, just wanted to touch base with you on this. I posted a reply on User talk:TomTheHand/Ship category proposal. Basically I agree with you about not limiting by era, but I had trouble expressing it in my table. I also wanted to clarify whether or not you're ok with categorizing by country instead of by navy, and having navy subcats only when necessary (like for USN and CSN ironclads). TomTheHand 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom as an example of the proposal; contrast with Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers. TomTheHand 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786)

Thanks for your support in this little controversy. I appreciate it. The last few days I've been making a real push to finish off the Gearings. —wwoods 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

women in the military

Thanks for the kind words!--SGGH 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jinian; ship seals

Hi jinian. Could you please give me a minute here? I;m trying to add some text to US NAvy Ship Seals. I'm starting to get edit conflict messages. Not sure what the protocol. I'll be done in a few minutes. Maybe that would b easier for both of us. Please feel free to reply. thanks. --Sm8900 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no prob. thanks for reply. sounds good. see you. --Sm8900 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, basically done. thanks for your help. see you. --Sm8900 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jinian. How do you like the article now? Hope things look good. --Sm8900 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gearing class: done

I've knocked off the last two Gearing-class destroyers. Funny bumbing into you yesterday in Bausell. :-)
—wwoods 01:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guity Novin

Check out Deletion process:

If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE), remove the AFD Header from the article (be sure the AFD Category is also removed), and put a link to the discussion sub-page on the article's talk page (the template {{oldafdfull}} is recommended for this, so add
{{oldafdfull|date= dateOfNomination |result= '''result''' |votepage= articleName }}

You have to put the result at the top of the article talk page as I've now done here. Tyrenius 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Space Pirates

You deleted User talk:Space Pirates at the user's request. Is there any way that I could get a copy of my contributions to that page (email, temporary undelete, somewhere in my userspace)? I spent about an hour one night working through an explanation of verifiability, etc for a new user and convinced him to move an inappropriate user page off of Wikipedia. I've run across similar situations a couple of times and would be interested in having this explanation as boilerplate for future similar discussions. ~ Bigr Tex 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Lane

Hey,

I accidentally created Harriet Lane (ship) despite a good search for existing articles, as it was a requested article at WPMILHIST. I don't know why your article on the same subject didn't come up on my search, but anyway. I have proposed a merge, I don't know if you would be open to merging the best parts of both articles together? Though if we do, I would suggest taking the USS off the title, as the ship was both USS and CSS in her life. What do you think? SGGH 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do it tonight, and put it under USS Harriet Lane, I didn't know about that convention, sounds interesting! Cheers SGGH 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done SGGH 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DEFAULTSORT template

Hello. Judging by your partial revert [6] of my cat. changes to USS Baltimore (SSN-704), I presume you are not familiar with {{DEFAULTSORT}} and how it uses magic words to both increase accuracy and reduce tedious typing ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ann Crecente (2nd nomination)

I was wondering what exactly happened to this closure. You seem to have not substituted the discussion closing template {{ab}} (alternatively {{afd bottom}}), but instead you included the flag of Alberta. Was this a simple typo of some sort? I'm also a bit confused because the result seems to indicate a merge result would have been preferable, and not a keep. Best, IronGargoyle 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again, but the {{oldafdfull}} template on Talk:Jennifer Ann Crecente is malformed as well. You might want to take a closer look over the deletion process guidelines before you attempt any other closures. It looks from the logs like it's been quite some time since you have last closed an XfD. Best, IronGargoyle 20:13, 11

July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the AfD has now been properly closed and I appreciate both of your efforts to make this change. I am surprised User:IronGargoyle that you perceived a "merge" result was indicated. There were six "merges" and five "keeps." This would indicate either a "keep" or a "no consensus" but certainly not a "merge." It is my understanding that status quo is the outcome unless the discussion indicates a strong preponderance for change.

In any case I appreciate the assistance in having this article restored. Drew30319 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar Phone Corporation Deletion

Hi. Why did you delete my article on Dollar Phone? I am working on expanding it. This wasnt spam, I am new at this and I was trying to create an informative article about a fast growing telecom company and the largest privatly held prepaid calling card company in the USA. Can you revert the deletion? If not I will start again. Dynamicfun 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GassyGuy

Can I ask you exactly what happened with this page? It appears to have been deleted and recreated, which I am certain is against policy. I know there was a dispute over whether GassyGuy should blank his talk page or archive it, but I can't believe that deleting the page (therefore losing all record of discussions that went on there) is valid. What's the story? It may seem that I'm intruding on something that doesn't involve me, but I am just curious, both about the blanking question and the issue of deleting a talk page. 128.151.71.16 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user requested that his page and associated talk page be deleted and then protected. I saw no reason not to respect that request, as user pages and their associated subpages are typically considered to be the user's and requests for deletion are regularly respected. It did not appear that policy violations had occurred. If you believe otherwise, and that these pages need to be restored in order to pursue that issue, let me know. I believe the user has stopped participating and therefore it's probably a moot point. Jinian 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of 'your' ships

Someone seems to have splatted a paste into the middle of USS Julia (1812). The content is actually at least distantly relevant, so I didn't delete it, but it was literally dropped into the middle of a sentence (mid-interwiki link even), so it has broken the page a bit. Thought I would ask you to take a look to see if any bits of it are worth keeping. Maralia 03:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sneak peek

I noticed you are adding cats & templates to some new pages - thought you might appreciate a new tool I'm working on as part of the WP:SHIPS revamp: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles. Maralia 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]