User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archives/2021/February

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Telephone spelling alphabet thanks
Thanks for undoing my deletion; it made me reevaluate how to handle the telephone alphabets. I was going to consolidate them in the NATO phonetic alphabet article, but your action made me realize that was silly, and take a closer look at the IITS alphabet. When I finally realized the Western Union alphabet was used over the telephone, it suddenly became obvious the right path was to take all of the telephone spelling alphabets and put them in one place.

That, in turn, made me realize that the telephone spelling alphabets likely were the direct ancestor of the radiotelephony alphabets. This should have been obvious, but wasn't to me and cleared up a big mystery I had with why there was so much confusion over when the first radiotelephony alphabet was created. So double-thanks! :-) PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB)

a comment
"a lot of bad formatting...." tell that to yourself "smarty" one!

a lot of bad "formatting" is you!

"revert to earlier good version" wasn't "good" version either

Misplaced comment?
You just added a comment that is relevant to a Naomi Wu talk page conversation about 8 sources, but your comment may not be noticed since it appears in a different section of the talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the bloody mobile version of Wikipedia talkpages for you. It's a liability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there consensus to remove small tags from "List of monastic houses in ..." articles?
I see that you removed small tags from List of monastic houses in Suffolk after I had fixed the non-matching tags. Removing the tags is fine with me. has reverted the previous removal of some small tags from articles (e.g. at List of monastic houses in Scotland and List of monastic houses on the Isle of Man), but it looks like they have subsequently been removed again, at least from some articles. At this point, there are a bunch of "List of monastic houses in ..." articles with non-matching tags, including those listed at User:Galobot/report/Articles by Lint Errors, and the group of articles is inconsistent.

If people really want to reduce the font size in those tables, it should be done at the table level, not with a million tags. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It was probably a partial removal from those articles by me. My fault. I'll put some work into cleaning up the faulty ones (either removing the non-matching tags, or removing every instance of "small") Do you know if there's a tool that makes it easier? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If I were to take it on, I would copy the entire content of each article to a text editor and do a complete find and removal of and, then copy and paste the content back into the article. Doing this one as an example took me about 30 seconds. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that method seems to work. I can also address the use of italics in the lists at same time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Update) - Done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast! Thanks for the cleanup. I found and fixed some additional italic markup. Those articles have a lot of non-MOS-compliant formatting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Once I started it seemed wrong to stop. and I discovered the search/replace function in the editing window. Is there something that makes it easier to find the errors? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The most useful tool for finding formatting errors is the Syntax Highlighter (in Preferences - Gadgets). The other one is a bit technical, but if you are comfortable adding to your .js configuration file, take a look at User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint. It adds a "LintHint" button at the top of the page that shows and links to individual Linter errors, like mismatched formatting tags and other stuff. There is a bit of a learning curve for figuring out how to identify and fix some of the errors. Special:LintErrors has links to more information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

TOG 2 armor
sorry, forgot to cite the source (The Tanks of TOG) but the standard frontal armor of the TOG 2 prototype is actually 114mm (more accurately 144.3mm), but the 76mm armor was fitted on the TOG 2 some time before it was sent to Bovington - yes currently the TOG 2 in Bovington has 76mm of frontal armor (the TOG 2 armor is modular - you could easily take pieces off and put thinner/thicker pieces back on, that's why those giant rivets are there and the armor looks like it's split into pieces) LuckyBlockYoshi (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Self reference
Would you please tell me what you understand by a self reference to WP? A note which directs the reader to another article is not a self reference. Please explain. Also, how do you know that the Hansard lists are exclusive to the war ministry? Some of the ministers in 1945 were members of the caretaker ministry which is the subject of a different article. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Self reference as in reference to Draft mainspace. If you have a problem with a specific cite, you're welcome to check it out yourself and change it if incorrect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed a section hatnote that directed the reader to another page for further information. That is not a citation. A self reference to WP is a citation to a WP article. Also, please be careful about the citations you are applying to that article because Dugdale is not in the Hansard list so have provided false verification. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Call of Duty WWII
calling my edit lying? TheGorg14 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Without a url to your edit, I have no idea what the content of your edit was. My last (maybe only, I didn't go back into the deep history) edit to Call of Duty WWII was bringing some formatting into line with the manual of style, and a minor copyedit on what Cobra was and stress on a piped link. I don't think either of those last two changed the actual content. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

oh ok. my bad TheGorg14 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapsible tables for victory lists
You may want to check Manual of Style/Tables, it states "Consideration may be given to collapsing tables which consolidate information covered in the prose." I think the WPMILHIST guideline is therefore in line with MOS. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Manual_of_Style still says "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading". I don't think the exception "if it simply repeats information covered in the main text", or the others is met. If the information is not supplementary to the article, ie you want the reader to read it, then it ought to be shown, if it's not important for the reader to read, then perhaps it shouldn't be there at all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously I want the readers to have access to this info. The last time this was discussed (I have to search for the discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 143), I was told to collapse the info as the table space should not dominate the article. I am fine with either or. In my opinion, it should be done consistently MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus at the moment is that there is no problem with tables being present, and I'm not against the tables - though presentationally I think some have issues (a dependence on colour and tags to convey information...). And double column for Meyer is off. I'd just be changing the default collapsed to expanded if I come across them.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Table formatting
Hi - you just reformatted the Fleet list in United Airways Limited. Can you tell me whether your changes are following any WP guidelines? I've done several tables like this before with no problems. I don't like: 1 - gathering most of the refs into a heap at the top and away from the text they support, 2 - removing the column width parameter meaning that dates now split into two lines and three lines when viewed on a mobile device, 3 - italicising one registration - why that one? 4 - I had the two undelivered Rapides in with the rest of the Rapides to keep them together - moving them out of the table makes them easily missable. I really want to revert - please comment. Lestocq (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In no particular order.
 * 1. Cites are there so the information can be checked. Putting them in a column of their own adds width to table for no benefit to the average reader. Attached to the table, they are out of the way but still associated with the list. If a reference applies to a single aircraft then ref could be attached to the thing it qualifies like eg the accident. Or just the aircraft registration
 * 3. One military serial italicized means I set out to italicize the lot but didn't get round to it.
 * 4. Two Rapides that didn't get delivered, weren't part of the fleet and a table wide cell breaks up the table.
 * 3. Column width was set to fixed number of points. If the column needs to be a certain width, use percentages, or use the Nowrap template to fix (longest element) that you don't want on two lines.
 * On my mobile device, the dates wrapped onto three lines before i removed the column width, and the table had to be scrolled sideways to read the notes (which were an equal width to the reference column)
 * Extra thought: On the subject of dates, unless you're going to sort by dates, you could get same effect for the term of service in a single column eg "| 1 Jan 1965 - 15 May 1972|"
 * Hope that explains my thinking. If you want to discuss it further, then it's probably better on the article talkpage then buried in this talk page.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and for today's edits. I've taken your comments and edits on board and just finished my rewrite/expansion. Cheers Lestocq (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft camouflage
Hi GraemeLeggett, thanks for the edits. However, several seem to be uncited... and this is a reviewed GA. Refs would be appreciated. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point. I shall find them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Your edit on Air transport of the British royal family and government had an important distinction of 9 vs 14 and I agree with your other changes. So just a quick thank you. Mark83 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Priories in Essex
Hi there, I saw you did some cleanup at List of monastic houses in Essex and I'm hoping you have some familiarity with the topic and might be able to help me with de-orphaning something? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can but try and help if I can. What needs to get some links? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's Cannons Priory, and here's the hard part - I can't find the slightest shred of evidence that it actually ever existed. The creator made a boatload of similar unsourced single-line priory/monastery stubs back in 2010, and the majority of them have been deleted, but for some reason that one was left alone. The only hits I've been able to find on any search are two amateur websites that both cite Wikipedia . I was hoping you might know enough to know what's going on with it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not on the list of monasteries in Essex, even as an alternate name. There's no clue as to which order of monks it might belong to nor a geographical location so checking any of the sources listed for Essex priories might throw up multiple possibilities. Just searched [ https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol2 this online source] and there's no match. I then cast the net wider over all the volumes of that resource on history of Essex with no luck. I'd say since 1 ) we can't verify it 2) there's no content to save - flag it for deletion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks for your help. I've stuck a PROD tag on it. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh lord, I'm not sure if it's something you want to put time into, but there's...more. A ton more. I grabbed all the Essex ones that are still single-line and alphabetized them at my sandbox, if you want to have a look. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now those look verifiable because they are on the list. Which means prod is out of the question for dealing with them. One could... 1) grab the text and reference from the list - which would just make them a duplicate of the list content 2) turn them into redirects to the list - may be valid for long gone priories as not much more info will be out there 3) tag them for relevant Wikiprojects and let them sort it out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, if they're legitimately priories I have no concerns with them being stubs. I just got worried that there might have been a whole pile more of unverifiable articles sitting there. Thanks again for your time, I appreciate it! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything about "Cannons Priory" but Burstead Grange and Takeley Priory do appear to exist though might not be notable.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

the definite article and ships
Hi Graeme, I'm hoping to get some support from you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Broichmore (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"No. 1404 (Meteorological) Flight RAF " listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect No. 1404 (Meteorological) Flight RAF. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Petebutt (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Template:Air warfare in Europe during WWII


Hello, GraemeLeggett. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Template:Air warfare in Europe during WWII".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Article 'Dodge WC series' – your two days worth of edits
Dear fellow Wikipedian,

I tried to be more selective in undoing some of your edits, that I disagreed with — but you had already made so many subsequent edits, that it had become impossible to undo just a few offending items ...

Even looking at your last version version of the article, it was still not consistent in its use of fractions... For instance, in the large models table, you used the ASCII symbol for ½-tons – but you kept the 3⁄4-ton, and the $1 1/2$-ton notation...

The Only way, that I can see, to keep the use of fractions consistent throughout this article, is to use the 1/undefined template, and shortcuts thereof. — There are just not enough ASCII codes for all the different fractions in this article. Also: the use of Bold fractions in the first column is because the first and second columns serve as Row Headers in the table. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * These things happen. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've left the fractions alone, this time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response, but I was distracted by health and other personal issues — nevertheless: Thank you for taking it so well !! GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * De nada as the Spanish say. Hope things are getting better for you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

List
Graeme just thought I would notify you I was just going through the list of aircraft on the list of British military equipment and discovered that a FAA Aircraft was in that list that was not on our FAA Aircraft list. It was the Hellcat I added it with citations feel free to edit what I did. Just informing you of the changes Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC).


 * I see what you did and why, but that's not the way that list works so I undid it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nuisance?
You've been around here a long time. What's "eating" you? You're making ill thought-through edits then making er, inconsequential ones. Why? Eddaido (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Diffs? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth generation fighter
Thanks for engaging. But is this largely uncited list of types the right way to go? If you check the history you will see that a revert war has been starting up. If you think it a good idea, please could you respond on the article talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

changing website to work on Uboat.net cites
I'm confused- why? Cite work is not available on the wizard thing and I can't find any guidance of when to use it Lyndaship (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out it's only an alias. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)