Talk:USS Torsk

Snorkel
I removed the statement "Torsk is the only submarine floating today that still has the snorkel" because I don't understand it -- every submarine floating today has a snorkle. --the Epopt 20:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I re-added this information and reworded it a little better. The Torsk is the only sub from the snorkel refit program that still has the original snorkel.  These were the first ships in the navy to attempt the snorkel system, so it is significant that the ship still has hers and you can actually go and see it.--ScottyBoy900Q &#8734;  23:50, 09 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stripping pennant numbers
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos
A host of photos of the boat can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hull Number in Lead Paragraph
Separating the hull number from the ship name is not uniform with the thousands of other pages on here that follow the same format. The excuse of "ease of readability" for new readers is redundant as the hull number is explained later in the article anyway.

There's no reason this page needs to be different. It should be changed to match the rest of Wikipedia. GansMans (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Enforcing consistency for consistency's sake is a bad idea, not a good one. If you think we should be consistent because that structure is better, then we have something to discuss. But you haven't asserted that. Put another way: didn't your dad ever ask you that old chestnut: "if your friends all jump off a cliff, will you?"
 * Explaining what the numbers and letters mean where the reader first sees it is a fairly basic concept. It's why we link terms on first use, or convert a measurement the first time it's given, or introduce an individual on first mention, not halfway down the page, where many readers will never see it.
 * You may not know this, but essentially all Wikipedia articles on US warships are little more than DANFS text. Go look at a DANFS article and tell me what you see at the top. Start with the one for Torsk. Then ask yourself whether you think the decision to put the hull number where it is in most articles was the result of anyone actually considering whether or not that makes sense for Wikipedia, a non-specialist tertiary source, or if it just happened organically from copying DANFS verbatim. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Consistency has always been an important part of styling articles on Wikipedia.

Besides that, when the Navy refers to a ship by its proper name, especially for the first time, the hull number is always attached on the end. It's the official and proper way to refer to a warship especially if it's the first time it's being referred to.

Since what we're discussing is literally the first words of the article, it's only right that the ship, the whole subject of the article, is referred to by its proper title for the first time.

What I'm curious about is why this page has been different to start out with and why it's such a big deal that it can't match the rest. If this is the way to do it, why haven't all of the other articles been changed to match this one?

I'm not trying to be mean, but the only reason you've given so far as to why this shouldn't be changed is because you, personally, don't think consistency matters.

If you can give an *objective* reason, like I have, as to why this article deserves to be different, then I'll leave it alone. GansMans (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Any official photos the Navy publishes, any official statement they put out, any article they publish, when one their ships is named, it's full name, hull number and everything, is written the first time it's mentioned. After that, it shorted to its namesake. It should be no different here. GansMans (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: We are not the USN, we don't need to follow their style. 2: The hull number is not part of the ship's name. 3: Have you actually read anything I've written? I find it hard to believe you have, if you think I don't have justification beyond "consistency doesn't matter". Go back to my second paragraph above and give that a second look. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You're entire second paragraph simply states the DANF texts are the basis for most warship articles on Wikipedia. That's not a reason why this change shouldn't happen. All that does is say this article came from a DANF text.

And no, we're not the USN, but that doesn't mean we can just change ship titles because we can. It doesn't work that way.

Yes the hull number is part of the ships name. Cutting off the hull number to put in a page link is the exact same as cutting off the USS to elaborate what USS stands for. You're splitting apart the official name of the ship to put in a page link. Point to another article on Wikipedia where the namesake of the article gets its name torn in half so part of it can get elaborated on.

You don't have a reason why my change isn't right. You're just stating that you don't want it to change just for the sake of it. I was even ready to compromise and say we could just put in another section in the info box and put the hull number in there and link it there instead. But you haven't even shown you want to compromise or even consider my change. Why even bother going to the talk page if your mind has been made up the whole time?

Find an objective reason as to why this specific article has the right to be different. GansMans (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me repost my second paragraph, as you seem to be having trouble finding it:
 * "Explaining what the numbers and letters mean where the reader first sees it is a fairly basic concept. It's why we link terms on first use, or convert a measurement the first time it's given, or introduce an individual on first mention, not halfway down the page, where many readers will never see it."
 * No, hull numbers decidedly are not part of the ship's name. You might want to do a bit more research on this particular topic, as you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the passive aggressive tone you are taking with me. Do not insinuate that I don't know what I'm a talking about and do not insult my knowledge on the subject. If there's a way to end this dispute, insulting the other editor is not going to help your case.

Here's what we know

1-The US Navy says when referencing a ship for the first time (ie the first words of the article), use the ship prefix, the ship name, followed by the hull number. This is the way all other Wikipedia articles like this are written in the lead sentece and is clearly written in this guide (which has been referenced before in cases similar to this on Wikipedia) here. https://web.archive.org/web/20150606165827/http://www.navy.mil/submit/view_styleguide.asp?sort=S

2-Like you said, most of these articles are just regurgitated DANF texts. That's why all of these articles lead paragraphs have the same styling. However, that does not mean that we're free to change the styling wherever/whenever we choose. So your point questioning whether it was copied like that for correctness or convenience is irrelevant.

3-The reason you want the page link there is to point out to new/non-specialized readers what a hull number is. That's fine, but it doesn't need to be done right in the middle of the ships title, literally splitting it in two. We can find elsewhere to put it, see my info box suggestion.

4-No, we're not the USN. No we don't have to follow their styling word-for-word (and sometimes we dont, see the hyphen that the Navy inconsistently places in the hull identification. But nowhere else, be it Wikipedia or not, is it right to split the ships title in half to elaborate on what the identification numbers are. It just not something that happens because it looks awkward. This is no different.

All I want is to have the ships title written put properly. There's a way to do that and simultaneously elaborate on what the hull numbers are without having that ugly split in the title.

We either find some sort of compromise or we'll have to get a third party to mediate or act as an arbitrator. Because so far this isn't working. And it's not due to my lack of trying.

GansMans (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seemingly can't identify the second of three paragraphs (and are still ignoring it despite me having quoted it and highlighted it). You are either incompetent or arguing in bad faith. The fact that you've dropped your obviously false assertion that hull numbers are part of the ship's name and are now merely part of the title (i.e., moving the goalposts) is further evidence of your bad faith. Stop wasting my time. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious you're just being condescending just for the sake of it. So I take it you're not willing to even try and resolve this and come to a compromise? GansMans (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I just have no patience for those who are incapable of discussing something in good faith. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So that's a no then.

I've done nothing but try to find a compromise or a solution. I'm sad and sorry you don't see it that way. GansMans (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have refused to engage with anything to me I’ve said, have actively misconstrued what I have said, and you engage in goalpost shifting instead of simply admitting you’re wrong. How exactly have you participated in this discussion that would give me the foggiest idea that you are trying to find a solution in good faith? Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering I've offered a solution, given my objective reasons as to why I think my edit should stay, asked you for objective reasons why yours should stay, made a list summarizing all of the things we've established so far, and asked if you'd be willing to compromise, admitted that if you just gave me a valid reason as to why you think your version is correct then I'd concede and leave it alone...I think I've done nothing but act in good faith.

You are the one who started insulting me. You are the one who made this turn a bit ugly with your attitude towards me. You are the one accusing me of not acting in good faith. You are the one accusing me of shifting goalposts (?).It was YOUR idea we come to the talk page to find a solution, but you've done nothing to point to you actually wanting a proper discussion. All you've done is escalate and escalate. That's not what this is for. This is a clear cut example of WP:STONEWALLING.GansMans (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: No, you haven't given any objective reasons. You've asserted consistency is good because consistency is good. You've offered logically fallacious statements.
 * 2: No, you have (and continue to) ignored what I've said and deliberately misrepresented what I've said.
 * 3: Demanding that I provide you with answers after I've already provided them is a tactic called Sealioning.
 * 4: You did shift the goalposts. Want to prove me wrong? Admit you're wrong about the hull number being a part of the name, and move on with your life.
 * 5: How's this for a compromise: the hull number isn't in the title of this article, so it doesn't need to be in the lead at all, let alone in bold text. Let's just remove it altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting find. The Torsk page originally had the hull number with the name just like all the other pages. But you were the one who made the unnecessary edit in May 2020 with the insubstantial reasoning of "tweak." GansMans (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you change it to begin with? It was fine the way it was until you "tweaked" it unnecessarily 2 years ago. All I'm doing is reverting it hack to the way it was/should be. You've edited on this page repeatedly for years, and one day all of the sudden the hull number needs separated. Why? Why haven't you done that to any other pages? GansMans (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I told you why I changed it. Stop sealioning. Parsecboy (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No you haven't. If you have, it hasn't even been remotely clear.

I also just don't understand the hostility. Why are you bring so aggressive and demeaning? At this point it borderline breaks the rules.

Another thing you've done is change my edit with "go to talk page" as the reason, which also isn't allowed. So there's that. GansMans (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll post it again; maybe you'll read it this time:
 * "Explaining what the numbers and letters mean where the reader first sees it is a fairly basic concept. It's why we link terms on first use, or convert a measurement the first time it's given, or introduce an individual on first mention, not halfway down the page, where many readers will never see it."
 * Do you see the green text between the first line in my response and the words you are currently reading? That's the reason. We explain bits of information when they will be unclear to general readers. We are an encyclopedia, intended for a general audience, not a specialist source intended for experts. Why I have to explain this concept is flabbergasting. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So why haven't you been changing all of the other pages to follow this concept? GansMans (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the fact that this is a complete non-argument, because I have no obligation to. Last I checked, this is a volunteer project. I get to choose how I spend the time I choose to spend here. If you are so intent on consistency for consistency's sake, why don't you spend your time doing it? Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am. I'm trying to get this page to match the others but can't because you won't let me. GansMans (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed, because what you are trying to change is a retrograde step. What I suggested is that you go change all of the other articles, as that would constitute an improvement.
 * As an aside, do you see how you've moved the goalposts to avoid actually dealing with my argument, yet again? And do you see how it can be frustrating to be on the receiving end of this behavior? Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not moving goalposts. I'm simply ignoring irrelevant questions and statements unrelated to the problem at hand. GansMans (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes you are. You asked why I prefer the format in this article. I asserted this formatting is better for reader comprehension, but rather than make an argument in favor of your preferred formatting, you deflect by asking why I haven't changed every other article. You asked for A, and when I provided A, you ignored it and asked for B. That's a textbook example of moving the goalposts. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll just leave it. It's clear from the initial hostility and the lack of any willingness for cooperation that this wasn't ever going to get anywhere, just as you intended.

I now know why this page is the only one you've changed and why this isn't the standard, and it's because you're seemingly the only one who wants it this way.

And you know what? This edit isn't worth getting in trouble over to me. But apparently to you it's worth insulting other editors over Wikipedia.

If a third opinion comes, we'll talk again. If not, sometime in the future another editor will come along and try the same thing I did and, unfortunately, be met with the same hostility I had to deal with.

Goodbye.

GansMans (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, storm off rather than admit you were wrong, that you engaged in logical fallacies, and deliberately misrepresented what I said. And what gall I had to point any of this out! While you're off soothing your bruised ego, you might want to consider what I've told you here, or you will likely run into similar problems with the next dispute you cause. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's called taking the high road. At least one of us has the courage to walk away. GansMans (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If that's what you have to tell yourself... Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion, from a complete landlubber: I have little preference either way, with a slight preference toward a parenthesized hull number as GansMans recommends. The benefit of consistency is that people will be less confused why the hull number is emphasized (or de-emphasized, depending on how you look at it). Are there two USS Torsks? (IIRC we disambiguate by year in those cases, but that's not obvious.) And I don't see how the presence of a hull number in parentheses is harder to parse; readers gloss over parentheses easily. If you want to clarify that it's a hull number, somewhere in the article body is perfectly fine. In any case, it's perplexing to me how much acrimony can result from a ship name, and I hope it can be settled now. Ovinus (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that we should uncritically follow bad practice because someone originally decided to slavishly follow DANFS formatting is not a good one.
 * There is but one USS Torsk (which is why this article is at the primary location). Ships that have hull or pennant numbers are disambiguated with those, by year if not. The problem is, do you, as a self-described landlubber, know what "SS-423" means if you haven't already been told? And even if you do, do you think most readers will? We write articles with the principle of least astonishment in mind; we should not be adding material without adequately introducing it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Voting isn't a thing. But at least an outsider's neutral POV might get us closer to a consensus.

Maybe having the hull number emphasized like that causes more confusion than clarification? It's only one person's opinion but still. Having the hull number clarified somewhere in the body or info box seems to be our best bet. GansMans (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to include the hull number in the text—and certainly not in the lede—unless actually required for disambiguation. It is essentially meaningless to our readers. Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably, it shouldn't be in the lead section even if it's required for disambiguation; no other disambiguator is treated that way (HMS Neptune (1909) doesn't begin "HMS Neptune (1909)...", nor does D-class cruiser (Germany) start as "The D-class cruisers (Germany)..."). Treating hull/pennant numbers the way we historically have is how we end up in situations where people believe them to be part of the name of the ship. There's an argument to be made that we ought not continue practices that obfuscate things. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
Maybe no other disambiguator is treated that way because the 2 examples you used are not in any way the same as a hull number...are you serious right now? Of course HMS Neptune doesn't have (1909) after the name. It wasn't part of the ship's identification. It was made up for the sole purpose of easing navigation on Wikipedia. You're seriously saying that a ship's hull number (an identification officially given to ships by the Navy) is the same thing as a made up disambiguator on Wikipedia...

The fact that you're trying to pass off (1909) and (SS-423) as being on the same level is absolutely mind-boggling and infuriating.

And with that logic, ship prefixes aren't *technically* part of the name either, so we should stop using those too. GansMans (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And the purpose of a hull/pennant number is… Parsecboy (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're implying a ship's hull number is simply a disambiguator for Wikipedia...and that a made up one carries the same weight and holds the same amount of water. Now that's laughable. GansMans (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, what I’m pointing out is the fact that hull numbers are the USN’s method of disambiguation. Asserting that they are somehow different than any other type of disambiguation is a logical fallacy called special pleading. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of a hull number is to help identify the ship, just like the name. That's why, in the case of US Navy ships for example, the hull number is almost always included with the name in the various sources we use. And for them it makes no difference if it's the first time the given has been used for a ship or not. There is no great mystery behind these numbers. We are not confusing the masses, nor shocking or surprising them, nor causing them to struggle. Hull numbers are simple identifiers, they help with organization, and I'm sure the majority of people understand that. For the few that somehow don't, we can spoon-feed the info to them with a link, later in the lead, by noting the hull number was assigned along with the name, which we almost always note the announcement of, along with the namesake. This is a mole hill that you keep trying to depict as a mountain... - w o lf  15:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that your specialist knowledge is far more widespread than it is, or that if something doesn’t bother you because you know what it is, it doesn’t bother anyone else. Is it also “spoon feeding” to link technical terms, or should we just assume that readers understand, for example, when we use “caliber” to describe the length or diameter of a gun without any signposting on our part?
 * And if the inclusion of hull numbers is not confusing to readers who don't know what they are, I assume your implication is that readers will simply ignore it until they're explained further down. If that is in fact the case, why are we bothering to include information we know readers will ignore? Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At both the wt:ships thread and here I've suggested a simple and obvious way to address the conserns you have, yet you continue to ignore and push for further argument. Why is that? - w o lf  15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious: your solution is not a good one. Moving the hull number link down a line or two in the lead accomplishes, what, exactly?q And putting it elsewhere in the article, where many readers will never see it, makes no sense. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing obvious is that you won't even conisder a compromise. Collaboration is an essential aspect of this project. Sometimes you need to consider the opinions of others. (And do it without threatening to stomp off and quit). Both and I have offerred suggestions, to work toward a solution, how about being a little more open to finding a middle ground? -  w o lf  21:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about stomping off and quitting (besides GansMans, that is)? As for compromise, do you have any good ideas? Or just solutions that obscure information that the vast majority of readers won't understand? You like hull numbers, we get it. But that doesn’t mean they need to be placed front and center (and without context or explanation). Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually recieved advice (from an unlikely friend might I add) that this battle simply wasn't worth trying to win. I was trying to back off before you (with your temper and inconsiderate remarks on full display) decided to try reporting me for whatever reason you could find just so you could get rid of me. I even stated that if we got a third opinion (which we did), that I would come back to continue talks (which I did). No I didn't "stomp off and quit." I took the good advice I was given before bad things happened. GansMans (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships/Guidelines says the hull number should be attached in the lead sentence. Doesn't that mean that is the current precedence? If it is, why is this still an issue? Shouldn't the precedent overrule the opinion of a single editor unless a different widespread consensus warrants change? GansMans (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering it was discussed [|once] eleven years ago by a handful of editors, and it directly contradicts MOS:FIRST, which represents a much broader consensus, no, it shouldn’t. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

But aren't you the only one here with that opinion? Surely if the number of editors who disagree with you grows as time progresses maybe it's time to admit whatever position you're taking isn't the right one?

Also, whether or not it contradicts MOS:FIRST is an opinion, not a fact. Its up for interpretation, so that part is irrelevant. GansMans (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno how you think "Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, such as Egg (food), "(food)" should be omitted in the text." is open to interpretation. Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about your opinion that hull numbers were specialized info...you need to stop filling in the blanks on your own because if you don't know what I'm referring to, don't try and come up with it on your own. GansMans (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You said my read of MOS:FIRST was just my opinion. What exactly did I falsely assume by that comment? Your deliberate misrepresentations are growing rather tiresome. At what point are you going to start discussing things in good faith? Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You falsely assumed I was talking about the eggs...

Before you (repeatedly) continue accusing me of not discussing in good faith, I'd go back a take a look at previous comments. Because that is three users now (including me) that have told you that you need to back off a bit and start trying to work towards a compromise instead of dying on the hill you're standing on. We are not getting anywhere because you aren't giving up a single millimeter of ground. How are you in any position to accuse others of not discussing in good faith, when you yourself are by far our biggest obstruction to a solution? GansMans (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I can assume you are discussing things in bad faith or you are so incompetent that you can’t understand what a policy plainly states. The choice is yours. Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * More insults, more ridiculing, no real answers. Par for the course with you it seems.


 * I don't know how you've not been punished for speaking to other editors this way. GansMans (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly lied and misrepresented my comments, made ridiculous assertions (and then claimed you haven’t) and behaved in generally bad faith (repeatedly moving goalposts and other logical fallacies). If you feel ridiculed by my characterization of your behavior, you might want to re-examine your comments here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing to re-examine. You've treated me with nothing but disrespect since the beginning. Because that's just the way you treat people.


 * The fact that others have had to tell you to back off (and learning you have a reputation for behavior like this) tells me all I need to know. GansMans (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t, regardless of whatever Bilcat wants to say in his childish little snipes. Since you apparently are unwilling to entertain the possibility that your bad behavior is what started this issue, I repeatedly tried to explain why you were wrong, and even pointed out how you were moving goalposts. You, on the other hand, have deliberately misrepresented my comments several times (and repeatedly demand I provide you an answer I already gave, at the same time). Do you see why I have lost patience with you? If you attempt to explain something to someone new, they refuse to listen to you, say plainly factually incorrect things, and then start lying about what you’ve said, repeatedly demand you answer a question you already have, and move the goalposts when they feel they’ve lost the debate, do you think you might also lose patience with that person? I have no problem with anyone else here. Because no one else here is engaging in the behavior I’ve described. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You've now insulted an editor that's not even in this discussion. Keep diggin that hole for yourself. GansMans (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, ignore any criticism of your bad behavior and make no attempt to justify it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild Should it be pointed out that he's now going around the various pages on Wikipedia changing the hull number format in all of the lead sentences? GansMans (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should it be pointed out that you got blocked once for hounding other editors?
 * And weren’t you complaining earlier that I should go and change every other article to match this one? And you’re mad that I started doing it? Make up your mind. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WT:SHIPS
Just curious why you two are carrying on this discussion now that it has been brought up at wt:ships? Why not close this here and continue on with anymore comments there so that there isn't a pair of duplicate discussions being held in parallel, and so that there is a wider audience? (jmho) - w o lf  18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)