Talk:ARA Rivadavia

Improved version of this article
Hi, I've been working for a while on this article, but decided to at least release it initially as a a "stub". When I finish the improved version, will replace the stub. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who has been working on the two Brazilian Minas Geraes-class battleship, so I'm at least slightly familiar with Moreno and Rivadavia and have been deliberating over whether or not to work on them. However, if you already have them mostly done, I'll step aside; otherwise, I'm going to expand this version of this article for a DYK for you and me. ;) Please ping me if you would like to collab and get this through GA/A/FA. :) Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, good to meet you; well done with the brazilian battleships! Glad to collaborate together, I've left you a longer message in your Talk Page. I'd like to finish my "improved" version of the articles related to the argentinian battleships, as a basis for getting them to at least "GA". Cheers, DPdH (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacing
If you want spacing, change the elements. Your mode of operation died out a couple of years ago when CSS was invented. So stop. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * take this to the navbox-level and stop disrupting these articles. —Portuguese Man o' War 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That shows that you don't understand the issue: The navbox can't change anything. If you prefer a space in front of any navbox, you have to take it there. Otherwise, you will create a look that is not unified across pages. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is common practice across ship articles. We have plenty of looks that don't conform across Wikipedia; for example, this article uses Chicago style when the great majority of Wikipedia uses our in-house style (e.g. Template:Cite book). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I non-randomly picked Arizona, Howe and Deutschland, checked all ship articles and found not a single style-breaking space of this kind.
 * Existing errors are no excuse for adding more.
 * If you want to have more space in front of the navboxes, change the navboxes. Anything else is more work, disrupts style, hampers accessibility and looks plain ugly.
 * What is your reason to change thousands of ship's articles instead of changing a few dozen?  --79.223.30.75 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "This is common practice across ship articles." Checked a few other ones, couldn't find a single instance. So I would like to use your argument: Let's use the common practice and get rid of the style-breaking space. (Note: I have to admit that I think this is a very weak argument, but it's the first one you mentioned, so you seem to like it.) --79.223.30.75 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quote WP:MOS "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (emphasis mine). So let's put all that energy to something more constructive, maybe like contributing to an article or something. GermanJoe (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You quote is too long: "Where more than one style is acceptable [...]", and patching spaces by inserting HTML comments certainly is not. If you'd actually used a style (eg. by changing navboxes), we wouldn't have this discussion. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then please point the editors, who actually contribute to the articles in question (not me, i have no horse in that race by the way) to the relevant MOS-guideline. HTML-insertions are accepted (WP:HTML), style variations are accepted (see WP:MOS). "I don't like" is not a substantial reason. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, you think I wasn't able to say more than "I don't like it?" Maybe actually reading my comments would help. You are no alone though, most reverts are commentless, which I think is a wee bit disrespectful. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * i understand the issue just fine; the comment marks are a local hack for a presentational issue with navboxes that some editor(s)—not i—have dealt with locally; you're a fresh-off-the-boat IP (got an account?;) that's going all in-your-face. you're at 3rr, are disruptive, and i'll be reverting you in a moment. /raise your concern at the *navbox* level./ you're not earning any respect with this approach. —Portuguese Man o' War 20:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rivadavia was sold to an Italian ship breaking company for US$2,280,000
Can this be true? The article says that the ship had already be cannibalized before - so 2.3 Mio USD just for the metal, that still had to be towed around the world? That would have been 85 USD per ton in the 1950s when the USD had a much higher value than today ...--82.83.32.201 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the source says. Keep in mind that steel like this was in very high demand after WWII. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Background:; last sentence
"Rivadavia and Moreno were ordered from the Fore River Shipbuilding Company in the United States.[1][10] it was not true"

WHAT was not true?Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ach, it looks like that vandalism was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARA_Rivadavia&diff=623038651&oldid=623036778 reverted]. Thank you for your keen eyes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on ARA Rivadavia. 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/20101102034637/http://www.revistadehistoria.com.br/v2/home/?go=detalhe&id=1307 to http://www.revistadehistoria.com.br/v2/home/?go=detalhe&id=1307

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARA Rivadavia. 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/20090605023722/http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/HistoriaAcorazadosArgentinos.htm to http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/HistoriaAcorazadosArgentinos.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)