Talk:Commander, Naval Surface Force Pacific

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific. 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/20140812203452/http://www.mrfa.org/VADM.Tidd.htm to http://www.mrfa.org/VADM.Tidd.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) 07:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Properly sourced, and WP:NOTNEWS (moved from user talk page)
FOLLOWING MOVED FROM MY TALK PAGE – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Would you kindly please explain this edit? The section is relevant, *referenced*, and we are not a rolling news report - it gives a description of the command as of that date!! Why did you make this edit? Revert it, kindly!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Couple of problems. 1. is a dead link. 2. Even if it was good, the particular composition of the command at any particular date is not encyclopedic. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide WP:SUMMARYSTYLE info of general interest. What was going on with COMNAVSURFPAC ±6 years ago does not advance that goal. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) that's what Wayback Machine is for, or other archive service, or finding the same text on the Net!! (2) Your second argument, I believe, which is your main one, that the information is not notable, is dead wrong. We have repeatedly decided that detailed organizational compositions are notable, up to over 200 years ago. I'm frankly shocked at your WP:RECENTIST attitude. We have pages upon pages upon pages listing detailed listings of military organizations - to pick a random example, List of Continental Army units (1775), or List of units of the United States Navy. There is no way that further research can be advanced on each individual component (such as, for example, still redlinked Destroyer Squadrons, all repeatedly determined as notable under WP:MILUNIT, if the initial mentions are removed!! (3) SUMMARYSTYLE does not justify, and does not advocate, *deleting* sections, but rather spinning off sections into sub-articles. Since the article size was about 14kB at the time of your deletion, well under even the old 36 kB guideline, you're again writing deceptive reasons to justify your belief that the data removed was not notable!! As I've proven above using the well-curated articles covering up to 200 years ago plus in places, the community unquestionably believes it's notable!! Refrain from further such action!! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Whether or not the waymachine can resurrect the link is not relevant -- the fact remains that the link provided is dated material. 2. The examples you give are not pertinent. The composition of the Continental Army at an important moment in time can be established by historical records. And the List of USN units has a big banner at the top noting multiple problems with the article. Also, you are mixing WP:NOTABLE with WP:NOTEWORTHY. Many of the units lists are Notable, but are we providing Noteworthy information about COMNAVSURFPAC's composition 6 years ago, without any prior or subsequent composition? 3. The editing rational I provide is sound. Moreover, I did not make any mention of article size. Finally, if you can't refrain from making adverse comments about my integrity (e.g., "deceptive"), then please do not post on my talkpage. IOW, keep th suggestions for article improvement on the article talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've advanced no justification for how SummaryStyle applies to deleting text, rather than splitting an article. So I disagree that your editing rationale/justification is sound in that regard. The composition of both the Continental Army, and NavSurfPac, can both be established from historical records, and they've both been deemed notable. The date has virtually nothing to do with it, and you've advanced not a single policy-based reason why 2012 is non-notable, beyond, it seems, that you don't personally favour it. Why are you trying to argue against the retention of the section on the basis of instantly available records, when the Continental Army data etc needs to be sourced from deadtree sources? You'd like to add more recent or older Standard Naval Distribution List listings of NavSurfPac? Please, improve and expand the article!! Be everyone's guest for more recent; they're all on the Dept of the Navy issuances site at https://doni.documentservices.dla.mil/sndl.aspx [NO WIKI ADDED BECAUSE TARGET'S SECURITY CERTIFICATE IS EXPIRED - srich32977]; but previous ones, again, they're taken down (like the original link to the 2012 list). Like the Continental Army, you'd have to go to the libraries or archives. I would dearly like to have back-issue access to the SNDL dating back decades, but I'm not in access distance of the National Museum of the United States Navy. I'm in New Zealand.
 * Refrain in future from removing material, detailed listings of military organisational structures, which large numbers of other editors have deemed notable across a wide range of countries and time periods, please. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW I have to go with Buckshot on this one. Providing he can find a source, I see no reason to remove that contemt. - the WOLF  child  18:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)