User talk:Llammakey/Archive 3

Your experience with Wikipedia so far
Hello Llammakey,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  "added info" to ships

Thank you for quality articles about ships, such as HMCS Waskesiu (K330), for gnomish improvements in content and style,, , , , -: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Engagements on Lake Ontario - edits
First, thank you for the work you have put into this article, and others on the War of 1812. I reverted your edit to the caption for the info. box image, because the caption was a verbatim rendition of the original caption to the image, which appears in the mousepoint italics under the picture in the image itself. If you wish to restore your edits, or merely put the links into the caption, or add explanatory preamble, I will raise no objection. HLGallon (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, nope, you were correct. I didn`t realize it was a caption, just thought it was a summary and people forgot to put italics. Once I saw you`re explanation, it all clicked. Thanks! Llammakey (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

French frigates
Llammakey, the Navy has many different frigate designs for different purposes. You wouldn't state the La Fayette-class frigates were succeeded by FREMM, just because it is a more recent design. Both La Fayette-class frigates and Floréal-class frigates have replaced D'Estienne d'Orves-class avisos. The two classes were being constructed at the same time also, so neither is a more recent design than the other. Rob984 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, The FREMMs are more destroyers than frigates and are really only called frigates because of the intricacies of the French language. You can have two designs, one right after the other, operating simultaneously. During WWII, the River-class frigate was designed to replace the Flower-class corvette, yet we do not say that the River class follows the Flower class. The Castle class followed the Flowers because they were of an improved design, even though the Rivers were the intended mission replacement, and the Castles and Flowers were built and utilised simultaneously. However, I have no intention of getting into an argument of what followed what (because frigates following avisos would also be wrong as they are different ship designs with the same mission-type). Revert at your pleasure. Llammakey (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The La Fayette-class isn't an improved design as such. They are multi-role stealth frigates whereas the Floréal-class are surveillance frigates. Differentiating between destroyers, frigates, corvettes and avisos is largely arbitrary; they are all surface combatants. Replacing a class of smaller surface combatants with larger vessels is still "succeeding" that class. Anyway, ok. Rob984 (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

HMS Wolvesey Castle
Hi, I noticed you included a template on this redirect, but no target. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. I fixed it now. Big oops on my part. Llammakey (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Project Resolve has been accepted
 Project Resolve, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! sst✈(discuss) 12:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Project_Resolve help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Caernarvon Castle link on HMS Enteprise
I see you fixed the link I added but I don't understand why or what I did wrong? Can you enlighten me so I don't make the same mistake again?Lyndaship (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Short answer : You did nothing wrong. All the other links were one way, I was making them consistent. Keep doing what your doing. Just a pet project of mine.
 * Long answer : See, over time there have been policy shifts as to how much of a ships title should be shown. Originally the eliminations included pennant numbers/year of launch in each link, then some wanted to eliminate the prefixes (i.e. HMS, USS, etc.). The best example of this happened in ship class articles. Originally there were hyphens in ship class articles (for example St. Laurent-class destroyers). Then there was stylistic change that eliminated the hyphens. So every link for classes had to be changed individually at the time because the links were all bracketed. They eventually went back to the hyphens. That's why the Featured articles all have proper usage of hyphens in class names, while you'll come across articles that are all over the place with the usage. Placing those links in templates would allow for a wiki wide template change, eliminating the need to go to each article.
 * The other reason I made the change is to prevent people from coming in and using alternate spellings for the ship's names. Some people do not like English names of places and that ship, named after a Welsh castle with a different spelling could be a place where a nationalist comes in to make changes. By placing the ship name in a template, it makes it harder for them to vandalise. In the case of ships with accents in their names, it prevents the elimination of the accents. Some bracketed links I have found would use a French spelling in the link, then in the second part of the bracket, drop all the accents, effectively changing the name of the ship. That's the reason why I changed it. Llammakey (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your constructive edits to the page: Lord Kelvin. These edits are greatly appreciated. Thanks Matthew
 * No problem. It's a good ship for an article to be done on. Llammakey (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

HMS Brilliant
Let me know what you think of the image - it's about the only relevant one I could find but I fear it may overwhelm such a short section. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Got no problems with it and breaks up the wall of text. Llammakey (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Naval order 28 Oct
Sorry to intrude on your edit. Keith-264 (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. Is there a problem? Llammakey (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that there was an edit conflict while I was moving the ensigns from the headers (I think things like that are deprecated). I've been tidying the North Sea 1914-18 articles while I'm off sick and gained the impression that no-one else was interested. I was apologising in case I'd trodden on your toes. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, no toes were harmed in the creation of the edit. It's just a minor thing leftover from when wikimedia commons turned all Images into Files. It passed under so many radars that I go around and change them when I see them. I didn't want to interfere with any of your text editing, so I was just gonna pop in there and change those. Llammakey (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's an area I leave to the experts. Feel free. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pourquoi?
Was this an accident? - the WOLF  child  18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely an accident. Llammakey (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy
Hi, I'd like to contribute more to this page. But I'm unsure of the general editorial position regarding scope and data categories. Is it your intention that the ships listed be in active service, and/or commissioned? From my point of view if the page is about the active fleet, then it should include all serving ships regardless of status (commissioned, cross-appointed, shared, leased, hired, seconded, etc..). The page already more or less reflects this approach, but it does get a bit mixed up regarding categories, as for example, when some ships are listed as commissioned, when in fact they are shared and cross-appointed (as with the carriers Puncher and Nabob, which were staffed by Canadian and British sailors and airmen, paid for by Canada, and served under Royal Navy command).

I'd like to suggest that the page remain broadly focused on the serving fleet, and that the historic section remain divided into the categories by periods (but remove "commissioned") and then by standard operational types (e.g., carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, mine warfare, patrol, amphibious, auxiliary) and that we shove everything into these. Trawlers and other types of vessels would be sorted into operational type, not physical type. "Patrol" and "auxiliary" would get loaded with all sorts, the former with smaller fighting craft, the later with support/harbour/other craft). Whether or not the ships are commissioned would be indicated solely by their titles, and we'd drop in a short note about how HMCS indicates commissioned. What do you think? Robert Brukner (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy only includes ships that are paid for by and under the command of the Royal Canadian Navy. All other Government ships, excluding those that served as CGS ships (such as CGS Canada) prior to the creation of the RCN in 1910 should be associated with their specific departments. As for the commissioned, the HMCS is only applicable to ships that have been commissioned into the RCN. That is the rule concerning it. That is why newer auxiliaries carry the term CFAV. They are not commissioned ships. Nabob and Puncher were specific circumstances related to the ability of Canada to get war loans from the US. Also only non-warship vessels above 100 tons or over 100 feet should be included on the encyclopedia, per MOS:SHIPS. Also your Lists link is a primary source and must be corroborated with a secondary source. Forposterityssake is a bad website to be quoting from. Llammakey (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Going by WP:WPNOTRS, appropriateness of primary sources is considered contextual, and corroboration from secondary sources is preferred not required. Referral to the Navy List is likely appropriate as it is not use synthetically, and only for questions concerning specific data points. Can you tell me which secondary sources you use? That would be very helpful to me. Also, I have reviewed WikiProject Ships/Guidelines and can find no mention of qualifying ships in lists by length. Would you please give me the specific reference? kindly Robert Brukner (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Project Scope tells you what is acceptable under WP:SHIPS. As this is a Military History article too, consider those guidelines in effect too. Also consider this a demand to corroborate your primary resource. Otherwise I'll put a motion to remove it. As for secondary sources, check your local library. Hope that helps. Llammakey (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Miramar
Hey Llammakey, thanks for filling out the form - could you also freely register so your account can be validated? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I already did. I already used my free account to add info to the HMCS Cormorant (ASL 20) article, trying the citation template out in a test run. Even if the project doesn't work out in the long run, I say we keep that template, it's pretty easy to use and looks great. One of the coders should make one up like it for DANFS. Llammakey (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe the email you used wasn't the same as the one on the form? Could you email me what email you used for the free account? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It`s not the same email I use for Wikipedia. I have one email that I keep for that to protect myself from less nice people on the wiki. The one I used for Miramar is one of my mains. I have no idea how to send you an email through the wiki though. Llammakey (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've emailed the address I have for you with instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If you like you should know it is Boat 7
for the seventh boat of the Astute Class. It has NEVER been named HMS Ajax.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22boat+7%22

and see my links across its page.

Thanks.

Phd8511 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The boat has not been built yet. It should not have a page at all until at least the keel has been laid. That being said until it deserves its own page, redirects to the Astute class can be both until otherwise confirmed. If enough outside sources call it HMS Ajax then that name will have to be dealt with somewhere on the page. Something like "called HMS Ajax in the media before being built, though never by the Government of the United Kingdom itself, the hull, called Boat 7, was ordered on..." and a redirect. As long as there is reliable sources, then the subject has to be dealt with. Llammakey (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Restigouche
Thanks for the thanks, I got a bit confused with the coords for a while....;O))Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Capture of USS Chesapeake
If "the 'insert ship's name'" format was good enough for Captain Broke - see his quoted message - it should be good enough for anyone, MOS regardless. MOS has many faults and is merely a set of guidelines; it is better to have some flexibility. The repeated use of the "the 'insert ship's name'" format within the quotation (which is highly germane to the whole article) makes the guideline rather pointless for this particular page. Urselius (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One, I personally try for conformity on all ship related articles. If all the other ship related articles have no definite articles, then this one should not. Just saying. Two, just because a quote from a two hundred year old source says something, this does not mean that the rest of the article should be in that format. To make a comparison, if someone is quoting Beowulf, then all the names have to be spelt in old English under this rule. One quote should not be the basis for the entire article.
 * As for why the MOS is right on this, ship`s have names. I do not refer to you as the Urselius, I refer to you as Urselius. Just as I do not refer to the shoe-making company Nike as the Nike. Names do not require definite articles in front of them. That is just good grammar. I hope this explains why I chose to remove the definite articles.Llammakey (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ouragan-class landing platform dock because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a spelling mistake. Llammakey (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of motor yachts by length
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;List of motor yachts by length &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.69.211 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

SS Hopestar
Looks like Sherlockh22 is only interested in this article (lost a relative on the ship?). I'm sure that we can bash any additions into shape between us. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll keep watch to format citations and such. Half the time I suspect people are doing genealogical trees and come across a tragedy in their family history and want to share it with the world. Llammakey (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Impostor
Hi,

I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

HMCS's

 * Thanks, Euryalus. Llammakey (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Impostor
That wasn't me. That was an impostor User:Linguist1111, who was forging my signature. Linguist 111 talk 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the second time in a week that I've been nailed by imposters. What the heck am I doing to get all this wiki-hate? Llammakey (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably nothing personal. I saw that they've done that to a lot of other users. Linguist 111 talk 00:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Flag
Re this and similar edits. The correct disambiguator in 1921, see Flag of Canada. Please revert your edits. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will revert nothing. The Canadian navy never used that flag as their ensign. That is the flag of Government of Canada ships and the naval jack. The Canadian navy sailed under the White Ensign from 1911-1966. See Ensigns and Jacks of the RCN. I can get cites for you too. Llammakey (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Or here, this might help, if you had bothered to look it up. Canadian Naval Ensign instead of demanding reverts. Llammakey (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

HMS Defender
Hi can you monitor the HMS Defender article as well? User Gary Dee keeps saying the ship is involved in the Air Egypt search when none of his not-reputable sources say so. Thanks.Cantab1985 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Partially my fault though. I corrected the citation layout yesterday without actually reading the source. Could have nipped this in the bud yesterday. Llammakey (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Gary seems to be set in saying Defender with the search when his sources do not explicitly say it is.Cantab1985 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can You issue an edit warning to GaryDee?Cantab1985 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have that power. I'm not an admin. I can suggest to him sites he might want to use to look for reputable sources though. Llammakey (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok but clearly it is still not a reputable source. He is stubborn.Cantab1985 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I went through the stuff he's trying to post. It seems to be based off an incorrect report by Fox News. All the other sources he's posted seem to be copypastes of that news report. The Fox News article has since been updated and corrected, but the other sites are still using the alpha version of that report. Llammakey (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have posted links on the Defender talk page to prove Defender isnt participating in the search.Cantab1985 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ships
Policy: "Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:..." This is not in accord with your changes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not technically wrong, but if you look at all the FAC of ships, they do not use definite articles before ship names. So while it is not technically wrong, it is grammatically ugly and is usually filtered out when the articles get to FAC, which is the whole purpose of the project. Furthermore, it is exactly what I say in my edits, which is that I removed definite articles before ship names according to policy, which is that they are not needed. Don't see where the problem is. Llammakey (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Template:Destroyers of the Indian Navy
for your edit work on the Template:Submarines of the Indian Navy. Could you do the same with ? KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  12:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Llammakey (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War
Hello, Once again, I'd like to thank you for your support while I was working to spruce up the various Royal Canadian Navy ship lists. I have a request for your advice and support in resolving an issue. You have far more experience then I and I am out of my depth. There is an article called British Empire in World War II. There was a notice that it was incomplete. I worked to expand it considerably over a couple of weeks. I also altered the title (to Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War| to keep it in line with British English and the "Military history of..." series of articles. Suddenly yesterday an editor rudely pounced on my work, altered the title, challenged the content, etc... I have responded assertively by reverting the original work I did on the original article back to the point of origin, prior to my first edit, and then reverting the changes made to my new article by the aggressive editor. I am sure there are a million rules here, but I know none of them. All my work is done in good faith. But I could use some of your wisdom and help with this. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert. I don't think we can call it the Commonwealth at this point in time. Historically, London and the British Chiefs of Staff dictated military policy which of course led to the bombing of Darwin in Australia and the removal of trade protection resources in the North Atlantic to cover invasions elsewhere. Canada deployed its soldiers to far-flung British possessions at the onset of war to help keep hold of the British Empire (Caribbean and Hong Kong). Equality really only started to take hold about half way when Australia and Canada, among others, started kicking the hornet's nest. Llammakey (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Essex (whaleship)
Hello Llammakey. Your comment here was unsigned, and the bot has not properly attributed it. Kablammo (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rectified. Thanks Kablammo! Llammakey (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Good day sir, I have a request
I am interested about the actions of minor navies. I am currently at the Romanian Navy, trying to bring to light the ships sunk by them. First, I tried working on lists of shipwrecks, but that turned out to be too complicated, and spreading the ships into too many different articles. Based on a similar list about the Japanese Navy (List of ships sunk by the Imperial Japanese Navy),I crafted this list, until now only containing the surface ships. The Romanians also sank 10+ submarines, which I will add later. For now, please, I humbly request that you publish this draft. Please, I would be very grateful. Draft:List of ships sunk by the Royal Romanian Navy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.74.81 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Was declined when submitted, so no. Sorry. Llammakey (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse it did, because I created a new one. All is sourced from books. Can you please publish it? 86.123.124.122 (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Says it's under review. I am not a reviewer, nor do I have any intention of becoming one. Sorry. I would suggest taking it to one of the people who do the Featured Article or Good Articles, like Parsecboy or Sturmvogel66. Llammakey (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Question Regarding the Blue bombers
I have edited the Page to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers Come Check it out Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark32322 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Header
Thanks for explaining why you changed the semicolons for the source types, I thought hitherto that it was overkill and took them out. Apols Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob. I used to do the same thing until someone pointed out that screen readers for the blind cannot interpret the semi-colon in that situation correctly. Llammakey (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

HSV-2 Swift
Did you mean to de-link Eritrea? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, its overlink. Nations do not need to be linked, just like Atlantic Ocean or North America. Llammakey (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Malta Convoys
Sorry for blanking temporarily your edits, I got a conflict and then put them back. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought it was an edit overlap of some sort. Llammakey (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about HMCS Thunder
Hello, Llammakey,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether HMCS Thunder should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/HMCS Thunder.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Abbottonian (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please consider applying for Autopatrolled
Hi, I've just patrolled an article you created. Having had a look through some of your previous created articles it seems to me that you should apply for the Autopatrolled permission. It would help reduce the backlog at New Page Patrol if articles as good as the ones you've been creating weren't on the list. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Llammakey, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Beeblebrox! Llammakey (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

List of ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
Thanks for fixing this; I was following up on a change by repeating it through all the redirects, and hadn't noticed the caveat in Chelsea's RCN service. Good thing someone is on the ball! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I made the same change at List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War; will that be wrong as well? The introduction there says it lists all ships in service, commissioned, non-commissioned, loaned or hired. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

PPS: Actually, I'll take it back anyway: Sorry for dithering, it's probably too close to bedtime! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. Those destroyers are cumbersome in Canadian naval lore. They were transferred on loan to the RCN during WWII because of the British manning crisis, but due to Lend-Lease Act provisions and a Canadian policy not to accept specific loans from the US during wartime, they were not allowed to be formally commissioned into the RCN,with the exception of one due to the loss of another destroyer. They are under the same class as the aircraft carriers Nabob and Puncher. Llammakey (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships
Thanks for your edits, but User:Vijay rath is only going to undo them in his attempt at destroying the article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob. Part of the reason I did that was to add my eyes on the page. Llammakey (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

call for discussion
You renamed several articles about patrol vessels recently, removing the pennant number from the article's name, with the edit summary, "only ship of name - no need for disambiguation". Yes, I can see that an argument could be made that the names of articles of this type should not contain a pennant number, if there haven't been other vessels of that name. But I think the longstanding convention here is that such articles actually should include the pennant number.

Should I assume that, since you didn't link to a fora with a consensus for these renamings, you aren't aware of any discussion that established support for your renamings?

I am prepared to support either consensus, but I prefer the status quo. May I suggest that you seek the opinions of others before you rename any further articles of this type? How many articles are there, on vessels with pennant numbers, where the pennant number is part of the article name? I dunno. Thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.

Have you ever heard the aphorism: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I think there is wisdom in this aphorism. Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There have been several discussions here, an RFC and the relevant policy here. Make sure to read the note at the end Hull, pennant number and disambiguation section that it is wrong to disambiguate unnecessarily if there is only one ship of name per WP:PRECISE. I do not need to seek other options as the community has taken a decision not to make this a specialist wikipedia. There has been a problem and I am fixing it. Especially by those who intend to make this the USNpedia. Llammakey (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to prefer disambiguating names, even when there is no immediate need to do so. There may be only one current vessel named Teakettle, but an article name "Teakettle (ship)" complicates things downstream when somebody wants to add another Teakettle. The problems aren't insurmountable, but too generic a title squats on more territory than perhaps it should. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I only changed naval ships as most naval ships (British, US, etc) have a prefix or their article begins with French ship XXXX. So a disambiguator is not necessary most of the time, as they already have something that makes the article title special in comparison to Teakettle. Llammakey (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Hi Liammakey, you have been editing a lot of ship articles I have worked on, describing your changes as "fixed headings for screen readers for the blind". What is the issue? I am asking out of pure curiosity. This sounds like something I should be doing and just haven't done out of pure ignorance of the issue. Please let me know on my talk page. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of a colon as a header cannot be correctly interpreted by screen readers for the visually impaired, they format it as part of a sentence. The use of bolding or subheaders is preferred. I only changed the semicolons on those pages recently because I assumed you were aiming for subheaders. However, if the intention is to just have bolded titles, I can change it to them too. Llammakey (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My main motive for using semicolons was to break up text like headers do, but crowd the table of contents box that shows up at the top of an article. Sometimes the table of contents box can become longer than the article, and the sub-headers don't really add utility. For instance, making "Citations" a sub-header doesn't get you much because when you click on it all you get to is the template. Anyway, the issue is not critical enough for me to make life more difficult for the blind. I will be much more parsimonious with my semicolons in the future. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You could always use just bolding. For example Citations. It gets you the same thing as the semicolon without causing any of the aforementioned issues. Llammakey (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying the formulation of bolding followed by a break. Will that be a problem for readers? Acad Ronin (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Llammakey (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

81st Guards Rifle Division edits
Hello, Llammakey. Your edits to this article on Dec. 2 were unhelpful. The Wikipedia standard for dates is month, day, year. Also, conversion to Imperial units for armaments produced outside the US/UK is counterproductive and results in broken links. I have reversed your edits. Please get up to speed on the standards for Wikipedia before making any further edits.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, according to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, it is you who need to read up on the standards. But hey, be a jerk about it. Llammakey (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not intending to be a jerk, however, I'm quite certain you misunderstand the manual on dates. In any case, your edit of the 88mm link, editing it that 88mm = 3 inch is objectively wrong. 3 inches is 76mm in metric measurement, while 88mm is 3.46 inches in Imperial, as you will find in the infobox of that weapon: 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41; that's a big difference. Your edit resulted in a broken link until I reversed it.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to break links. I do not dispute your reversing my edits if they break things. I only add conversions because I want people who use Imperial or Metric measurements to understand how big something is. As for the dates, there should be no ordinals or abbreviations in text and because it is an article about a Russian unit, I used the date system that applies to them. Month day, year is a Canadian/American thing. The majority of Europe uses day month year. However, if that's an issue for you, then by all means change it back. When the article goes before good article review, no doubt it will come up. Llammakey (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have reached a meeting of minds. For myself, although I grew up in the Imperial measurement age, I'm very much metric day-to-day, and that's what's most useful in Wikipedia. It's always good to be bilingual, and better to know as much as possible. I look forward to your articles, and your edits of mine. If I can be of help, let me know.Wreck Smurfy (talk

Your message, regarding ship class italicization
Llammakey, I've replied to the message you'd left on my user "Talk" page. (You'd left it ten weeks ago, I apologize for my response's delay. This note repeats the essence of the reply I wrote there.)

Your point was correct—I was in error with my ship class italicization methodology. I have re-read WP:SHIPS and now I will apply what I've learned. Thank you, for moving me to become a better editor. Catsmoke (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jack vs. Ensign
The place to debate the proper flag used for the RCN in infoboxes is not on a main article. It is at Template:Country data Canada, where it has the flag of the RCN as the blue ensign post-1921. The reason for this is that the blue ensign is more recognizable as a flag specific to the RCN, than the white ensign (there is no rule that it must be an ensign, see Template:Country data United States Navy where the jack is almost always used). If you disagree you should request a change there. Charles lindberg (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't brought sources. So if you change it again, I will bring you to ANI. Llammakey (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:SHIPS
Considering the article did not actually follow MOS:SHIPS when I started copy-editing it is pretty obnoxious to revert a 2000+ word copy edit back to a version that does not follow MOS:SHIPS and has the added benefit of being full of run on sentences that took me several hours to fix. Not to mention template_ing me with an obnoxious template about unconstructive editing! There is an article talk page where you can raise issues like this, in case an editor doesn't know about MOS:SHIPS. Please do not assume editors know about MOS:SHIPS. I will go back over it to correct the ship names. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And don't remove the prefixes, if you actually used prefixes maybe the article would make sense instead of following some arbitrary MOS rule about whether or not the prefix is optional. This is not like the Nina, these ships have prefixes and they are not "unambiguous" names because most people reading the article have never heard of these ships before, so the prefixes should be used. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway I see we have different rules for articles about specific ships and articles that only discuss the ships in the body. To make matters worse, apparently there is no need to use the prefix in articles about naval battles. Does this make sense to you? I will follow the MOS as it is written, but I have to wonder why we would use the prefix in an article about one ship where it is obvious the entire article is about that ship, but we wouldn't use it in an article about a naval battle where there are multiple ships and it is difficult to keep track of them. I guess we expect our readers to read our articles multiple times to figure out what's going on... but they don't. I know they don't. So, I have found the section you were referring to and I will change the ship names to comply with this poorly thought out MOS rule. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article after your supposed copyedit. Prefixes are not part of the ship's name and therefore not italicized. Furthermore, USS is anachronistic as it was not a real thing until 1907. Furthermore, you insist on putting USS in front of Alliance but not HMS in front of the British ships. Makes me believe you are editing with a POV. Definite articles should not be used in front of ship names anymore than I refer to you as the Seraphim System or the Seraphim System made a bunch of bad edits. The Nike doesn't make shoes, Nike makes shoes. That's just proper grammar. You got hit with the unconstructive editing tag after you reverted ALL of my changes, not just the ones you disagreed with. Also, your apostrophe use is wrong. Go check out FAC and see how ship articles, battle articles and general military pages are constructed. Llammakey (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to go over it again today, I didn't know that it was HMS Serapis until after I decided to remove the prefixes anyway. As for the definite article, MOS says it can be used if you want to, and I see I missed one paragraph after going over the whole thing because I didn't feel like arguing about it. My apostrophe use is not wrong. I don't know why you're talking about FAC, anyone who saw the writing in the article when I started editing would think you were joking. I had to correct about 50 instances of Jones's. I should have probably done it with search and replace, but I just learned how to do that so I wouldn't have to remove the prefixes and correct the ship names by hand. There were some typos but this is only because I didn't think that I would have to configure Vim to use spell check, this was a pretty stupid mistake but I am configuring it now. Even after you "fixed" it, I had to correct two more Jones's. As for "supposed" copyedit, the entire article was comprised of sentences that was constructed as bowls of spaghetti that needed to be detangled. I once had tell someone tell me there is no such thing as a run on sentence in British English (of course this is not true) — but I am literally avoiding ship articles after that, so you can add HMS wherever you like. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about run-on sentences. I'm not into that. I care about maintaining a consistent style through ship articles. See MOS:APOSTROPHE for apostrophe use. Just fyi, if something is recommended, then it should be used. That's just common sense. Llammakey (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I am a new copy editor, so I do actually read all the parts of MOS that are pointed out to me while I am copy editing. As for run on sentences, these are very important. These articles are meant to be read by others and most of the time no one outside the writer's head can follow their run on sentences, for example: On the evening of 22 September, Jones in Bonhomme Richard (an armed East India trading vessel he had reluctantly adapted for military use), accompanied by the little brigantine Vengeance, had been off Spurn Head, hoping to catch a few prizes emerging from the Humber estuary, but he decided to head northward during the hours of darkness, and rendezvous with his frigates Alliance and Pallas, which had parted company from him further up the coast. — I do care about it, as it takes a tremendous amount of energy to disentangle someone else's thought process and I assume that our readers have short attention spans. We do have a certain style of writing on Wikipedia (including conciseness) and while I don't deny the importance of MOS:APOSTROPHE,but I would first recommend mastering MOS:COMMA. Surely you understand the difference between a major and time consuming copyedit and your own personal quest to impose an arbitrary "consistent" style on all ship articles—unless you want them to all be consistently impossible to read, which is the effect of this prefix rule, but maybe we can talk about that more later. It is not really within the scope of a copyedit. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Assume all you want about reader's attention spans. As for that run on sentence, it could have been hacked into two, possibly three sentences. No need for prefixes. "On the evening of 22 September, Jones in Bonhomme Richard (an armed East Indiaman) and the brigantine Vengeance were off Spurn Head hoping to catch a few prizes emerging from the Humber estuary. Jones decided to head northward during the hours of darkness and rendezvous with the frigates Alliance and Pallas, which had earlier parted company from him further up the coast." or alternatively "On the evening of 22 September, Jones in Bonhomme Richard (an armed East Indiaman) and the brigantine Vengeance were off Spurn Head hoping to catch a few prizes emerging from the Humber estuary. Jones decided to head northward during the hours of darkness and rendezvous with the frigates Alliance and Pallas. The two frigates had earlier parted company from him further up the coast." Llammakey (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Prefixes have nothing to do with run on sentences, which is why I reverted you. It was considerably less labor intensive for me to go through and correct the prefixes and add the full ship names (which were not used in the article when I started editing it)—then it would have been for me to go through and change the entire text again, where obviously I would have still had to edit out the prefixes and articles that were in the original version. As for the prefixes, I think secondary sources use this convention as well, but that makes writing the article more challenging. This sources do drop the prefixes, but they use other forms of repetition, for example calling Serapis "the British ship" or alternatively "the Continentals" or "the Continental ship" — this could be improved without prefixes. Maybe improving the sourcing would help, as the article currently uses a lot of primary sources which should probably be replaced by secondary sources and some of the excessive details removed if they are not discussed by secondary sources. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

HSwMS Ehrensköld (11)
Hi. Do you know which boosk these references refers to? /Saftgurka (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whitley, M.J. (2000). Destroyers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia. London: Cassell & Co. ISBN 1-85409-521-8. - taken from the class page Llammakey (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Tidying up after me
I often see you tidying up pages I have created. I have learnt a lot from watching you but I am wondering if I should be doing the remove redirects and if so what is the criteria and placing the tags on the talk page? Lyndaship (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. The redirect thing has more to do with keeping a MILHIST category tidy. The MILHIST tags are hard to remember, which is why I don't suggest other people to do them unless they really want to learn. They relate to the task forces in MILHIST. Tags on talk pages are related to the subject. So in the case of a warship, it would WPSHIPS, WPMILHIST and whatever national wikiproject, like WPCANADA in the case of a Canadian warship. I leave out the national wikiproject on most because they have importance scales and I'm not up to date on all of them. In the case of a merchant vessel, it would only be WPSHIPS. One that became a shipwreck might get WPSHIPWRECK and so forth. I'm quite happy to keep tagging the pages for you, because it limits the Dab/SI/List debate you keep running into. Llammakey (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I was worried that you were cursing me for causing you lots of work that I should be doing. If you continue with them then as its always good to have a second pair of eyes look at things and I notice you also spot a lot of my silly mistakes Lyndaship (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Italian ships default sort
Noticed you just changed default sort on one. I understand that Italian usage is to refer to ships by the family name and sometimes the given name varies even when named in honour of the same person so suggest you leave default sort on family name Lyndaship (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The name of the ship is the full name. Hence the change in defaultsort. The US ship names are sorted by the full name, not by last name. Always use the full name, so its not Truman, its Harry S. Truman. It's not Todaro when the ship's full name is Salvatore Todaro. Llammakey (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As you like but look at the index page for Italian ship Luigi Galvani as an example, sorting on given name will cause confusion and  Italian officialdom will refer to both as Galvani Lyndaship (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then make the index Italian ship Galvani and your problem disappears. Props to the Italian officialdom, but at Wikipedia, we have our own style guide. Llammakey (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Why didn't I think of that? Lyndaship (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

USS William M. Wood
Thanks for fixing my mistake on USS William M. Wood. My brain was in a disambiguation rut. Leschnei (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No problems. It's a recent change to the policy in the WP:SHIPS area. Llammakey (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)