Talk:Block Island

Recent incorrect edits
I have reverted some incorrect edits:

"Rough waters" -- Scotch Beach, Mansion beach, and State beach are not rough. They are perfectly safe for swimming on any day when there is no storm or hurricane nearby (like any other beach). I have lived next to them my whole life.

Cannot walk to the bottom of Mohegan Bluffs - This is wrong. You can still go down there. (And an alternate route should be noted if you can't- just go to Vail or Black Rock)
 * Datestamping this for eventual automatic archiving CapnZapp (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

recent issues
User:Dilidor, I invite you to detail your misgivings with the article here on talk to let other editors into your process, helping to understand your edit actions. CapnZapp (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For reference, here is the relevant text from 1938 New England hurricane:
 * Block Island, approximately nine miles offshore, and except for the destruction of several fishing boats, was comparatively little affected by waves, with two fishermen killed, one by drowning. But the island was greatly affected by wind, with most barns and farm outbuildings destroyed. 
 * —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the sentence as you edited it: "Block Island was devastated by the 1938 New England hurricane, which, with the effects of WWII soon after, effectively ended substantive farming on the island." I enumerated the problems in my edit summary, but the major problem is that you have removed substantiated content regarding the deaths of two fishermen and replaced it with completely unsubstantiated claims regarding farming. There were other problems, as well, but that was the main reason for reversion. Nonetheless, I have removed that sentence altogether, as it's accuracy is debatable and it adds nothing to the article. —Dilidor (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Engaging on the talk page, as you did just know, is an encouraging step. Going forward, User:Dilidor, you will find you get a much better atmosphere of cooperation when you take a few related edits at a time, detailing your reasons, rather than performing wholesale reverts (especially to your own earlier revisions), effectively negating the work of various editors with no more specification than "last good version". Regards CapnZapp (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the issue at hand, I can explain my action: your reversion reintroduced a persistent spelling error, which, coupled with how it removed edits that looked reasonable with no good (read detailed) explanation, made your edit look careless - making it an obvious target for discussion and scrutiny. By undoing the blanket change and bringing this to talk, I feel I have helped us both to contribute constructively to the project. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy about your self-satisfaction. —Dilidor (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dilidor: Thank you for acknowledging that you have read my response. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Name given by da Verrazzano
Why does this article state that the name given by Verrazzano to the island was Claudia (the king's wife)? All sources I have seen so far say that it is Aloysia, after the king's mother. Even the original text in Italian of the Cèllere Codex uses the phrase "Vostra clarissima genitrice", which would clearly mean his mother. I think the translators and cartographers who render the name as Claudia were in error, exactly the opposite of what the article currently states. There are academic secondary sources that agree with my assessment.

I will change it if nobody disagrees. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

new refideas
You added several references possibly useful for future article improvement,. Thank you. However, they lack page numbers and it is far from clear how and why they would be useful. For instance, please look here All Pages: The Washington Times, January 06, 1936 and add the headline of the article, and ideally its page number and other applicable data too such as the writer if given, to make the first reference (and then the others) actually useful. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @CapnZapp hello, thanks, yes i'm aware that more details would be needed but i wasn't sure how exactly how to further cite them, in the example you mentioned, I did see that it looks like it's on page 14, is part of a greater section called "The Human Side of the News The Greatest Show On Earth", which the relevant part seems to be titled "A GHOST-SHIP". I've just been attempting to dump the references mentioned in that channel as they are a great untapped source of articles since they seem to do their own research instead of relying on Wikipedia, to the point i kinda wish we could maybe give attribution to them somehow but wouldn't know how that would work either. Akaibu (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please understand that is meant to provide useful material that can improve our article. You're supposed to have read the sources you suggest. For instance, if the January 6th, 1936 Washington Times, page 14 article by Edwin C Hill did go into details about this ghost ship legend, and we had an article on that legend, this source could be worthwhile in connecting the legend to our article subject, Block Island. But it does not. A mere mention of "Block Island" does not qualify. In any case, references that lack even the basics necessary to even find the reference should be removed. CapnZapp (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @CapnZapp overall the sources aren't just "a mention of Block Island", while i haven't read all the articles in question, my understanding is all the articles in question have to do with the Wreckers of Block Island, which we don't have anything on this page. there might be enough her for the subject to be expanded into it's own article but I'm not sure. I'd recommend maybe looking at the video that i obtained these references on(listed on the comment of refideas) to gain an understanding on what i'm proposing is being added and seeing if it's warrants a section here or if it may need to be made into it's own page, or if for some reason it's all irrelevant. Akaibu (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think one solution is for you to add that youtube video as the sole reference in that case. What I am saying is that a long list of incomplete references that you haven't even read aren't particularly useful, especially since they lack even basic reference data, such as page numbers. I would urge you to read through the references and only recommend those that, in your opinion, contain actual useful information on the subject of these wreckers. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Cleaned up the refideas template. Please do add back individual references, but please don't add incomplete references that editors can't easily use (providing page numbers is a start), and please only add references you yourself deem have value for the stated purpose: future article improvement. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)