Talk:Irish maritime events during World War II

new sections
I've sub-divided the 1943/44/45 section into separate years; it makes more sense to have a section for each year. And the decline in losses is easier to see this way. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Irish maritime events during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051031190409/http://www.ubootwaffe.net:80/ops/ships.cgi?boat=48;nr=20 to http://www.ubootwaffe.net/ops/ships.cgi?boat=48;nr=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish maritime events during World War II. 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/20110607110636/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909020007.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909020007.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ubootwaffe.net/ops/ships.cgi?boat=48%3Bnr%3D20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105011038/http://ubootwaffe.net/ops/ships.cgi?boat=34%3Bnr%3D17 to http://www.ubootwaffe.net/ops/ships.cgi?boat=34%3Bnr%3D17

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) 21:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Irish maritime events during World War II. 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://www.webcitation.org/6F9WtkP9h?url=http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909270020.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909270020.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6F9WtkP9h?url=http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909270020.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909270020.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6F9WtkP9h?url=http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909270020.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0077/D.0077.193909270020.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223103204/http://www.bpears.org.uk/NE-Diary/Inc/ISeq_10.html to http://www.bpears.org.uk/NE-Diary/Inc/ISeq_10.html

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) 16:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(Re)Movement of table

 * Firstly: A reminder that WP:BOLD remains policy. No one is required to discuss removal of content preemptively as you appear to believe.

Secondly, "slashing of page": The "compromise" edit (and in fact the edit I made first) removes nothing on this page, it simply moves the content to the bottom where it can be displayed in a more appropriate format for readers. You are more than welcome to move the section to a different place on the page. It is regardless inappropriate for the tables to be collapsed per WP:COLLAPSE, so I do not think you want such a table to be at the top right of the page.

Thirdly: The less-compromise of an edit already preserves the content at Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II, where it is vastly more appropriate since an article on the events of WW2 regarding the IMM is fundamentally not a place you need to put a list of ships. But if you want to duplicate the content, that's on you, I guess.

The basic premise of the edit at all is removing "infobox bordered" per MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do. At some point the styles for that table will be removed and then this page will not look good.

Please let me know which of the above paths you would like to take. IznoPublic (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of seeking the edit war, you could have tried to discuss the slashing it first. There was no attempt of finding a compromise, as there was no discussion at all. The path I like to follow is named: discuss it on the talk page first. The Banner  talk 17:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So what is your objection to the edit(s) at this point? At least one of them has 0 slashing. We are on the talk page and you have not provided a substantive issue with edit, so I am inclined to reinstate it.
 * As for the work I am doing, I have thousands of pages to fix. I am not going to provide an explanation on the talk page for every single one. That amounts to spam in the large and it significantly slows down the effort in question. WP:BOLD remains policy. IznoPublic (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is also a policy. And the point is that you did remove 10% of a fairly large article while refusing to seek consensus. The Banner  talk 19:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving on, since I have already asked: what is your objection to the edit(s) at this point? At least one of them has 0 slashing. We are on the talk page and you have not provided a substantive issue with that edit, so I am inclined to reinstate it. IznoPublic (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your lack of seeking consensus or meaningful discussion. I suggest that you switch your attitude and come up with a proper proposal about how to improve the article, including an explanation about what is wrong now. The Banner  talk 19:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I explained my edit in the first comment. Please respond to the substance of that comment. I explained what was wrong, why I made the edit, and the two separate suggested changes are in the article history for you to review. Please do so. IznoPublic (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Disclosure, here as a talk watcher of Izno's user talk page, where I saw a notice left. Seems like the content has been reverted on basic grounds of "undiscussed removals" and byte count, but no one has yet to actually reply to Izno's reasoning at the start of this section stating exactly what he was doing and why. On those two points:
 * Removing a set of data that already exists on a another parent topic page seems fine to me, as it can be linked to easily enough. This avoids duplicative maintenance of content, though I can understand someone wanting it here all the same.
 * The second set of data seems to have never been removed, but converted from an infobox bordered class to a standard table, as part of the efforts to modernize and improve Common.css, per Izno's stated reason. As the content isn't actually removed, just reformatted, I don't see any reason to oppose. The content's formatting will break when Common.css gets updated. A seemingly large reduced byte count in an edit doesn't mean visible content was removed. It was a lot of unnecessary syntax/formatting.
 * Even if the removed set of duplicative data is kept here, it sounds like it would still need to be reformatted due to the Common.css changes. This will again result in a negative byte count, without any actual visible text loss. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)