User talk:Driftwood87

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Durova Charge! 02:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Type 1936B destroyer
Hi, I see that you changed the max speed and range after I had edited the article - did you read my comments re reliability of the sources on the Talk:Type 1936B destroyer talk page? Better still, have you managed to find another, more reliable source?

Due to time constraints, I've only edited the article for the Type 1936B class, and haven't yet done the articles on the individual destroyers. Cheers,Bahudhara (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

NB: the figure of 6,200 nautical mile range does seem more in line with the ranges of the other destroyers, particularly the Type 1936A, given in the battleships-cruisers.co.uk source - but given the discrepancies between the two sources cited, perhaps this needs to be verified against the literature. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Did not see your comments on the reliability of sources. I only changed the article as the 6200nmi seemed so out of place in comparison with the range of the other German Destroyer classes (and which was "confirmed" after reading 'German World War II Destroyers' in Wikipedia) which were all in the 2000-2600 range including 2600 nmi for the Type 1936B. This is more than correcting a typo and I won't do it again without other sources. If your source is correct, all of the ranges of German destroyers listed in Wikipedia are wrong. Driftwood87 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, the 6200 nmi, given the size of the 1936B is possible, however is it practical, given the operations area (not the Pacific Ocean). 6200 nmi would also best almost all other belligerents destroyer classes of the war too. Would like to get to the bottom of this. Driftwood87 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I only saw the German World War II destroyers article just after I had posted my note to you. Overall, this article is better-written than the Type 1936B destroyer article (as well as the other articles on the individual destroyers of this class), but judging by the footnotes it seems to have been derived from the same on-line source (Kriegmarine).


 * Relying on online sources may be an issue - where the authors have copied-and-pasted material, significant errors may have been introduced (particularly where a single author is involved, such as the Kriegmarine site) - my feeling is that printed sources may be more reliable as they have probably been subjected to more rigorous checking and proof-reading.


 * Regarding the issue of range - it seems that e.g. the British Tribal class destroyer (1936) had a range of 5,700 nautical miles, yet a much smaller displacement. 'Range' is a convenient measure and doesn't necessarily need to be related to radius of operations - it's perhaps more a measure of the capacity to operate without refuelling, in terms of time, or the need to rendezvous with an oiler. Originally there may have been an intention for these destroyers to have a long range, relying on their high speed, to operate in a raiding capacity in the North Atlantic; and it may be that their actual role turned out to be more limited due to other factors (developments in aircraft and radar).


 * But I'm no expert in these matters, and unfortunately don't have the time at the moment to chase this up - perhaps this discussion needs to be transferred to the article's talk page, with an appeal for assistance from someone who has more detailed knowledge? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi ,, I've just put in a request for assistance with the article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, so it will be interesting to see the response. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * November 2003 - Osprey Publishing - "German Destroyers 1939-45", page 23,by Gordon Williamson. Doesn't give the range at 19 kts but lists the maximum endurance as 2900 nmi & max speed at 37 kts. Displacement 3542 tons with max fuel carried of 825 tons. Driftwood87 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

National Parks of Indonesia
Hi Driftwood87. Yes, I'm annoyed too about those maps not fitting together. It would be nice to replace them with one only, but as they are at different scale and latitude, it would need to be redrawn. The maps were made by User:Sadalmelik who is unfortunately innactive since July 2009. I think he made a great contrubition to Wiki with these clear set of topographic maps, and hope will be back one day... My plan is to bring the list to FL status, while improving the 50 individual articles... Hope will also get some help one day in this endavour... --Elekhh (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange indeed. Thanks for fixing that. By me the maps always appeared near each other (using Firefox)... Still it would be best to have just one larger map. --Elekhh (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

SMS Konig Wilhelm
Hey, thanks for fixing those lines - I don't know where my brain was at when I wrote that. Parsecboy (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Possessive for names ending in "s"
Is it standard Wikipedia practice to use only an apostrophe for nouns ending in s? I've checked several sites, all of which suggest using an apostrophe and s even for names ending in s.  Here is the link from the Chicago Manual of Style, for example. Bms4880 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Chicago allows refinement to this rule: "If it ends with a z sound, treat it like a plural; if it ends with an s sound treat it like a singular." (about the 9th question down) http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Apostro3.html Driftwood87 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)