User talk:Llammakey/Archive 4

NATO maritime groups
I was ASKED to maintain the pages LONG before anyone of you showed up and was doing fine. I am an active duty United States Sailor, I know what I'm talking about. I'm taking my information DIRECTLY FROM NATO! The only one who is doing disruptive editing is YOU!

STOP. IT. PLEASE.

--Battleship Sailor (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (EST)
 * NATO is a primary source. Updating ships in a formation is probably the least important thing to do on that page. Your service means nothing to the project. Please follow procedure. Prefixes must be used by their host nations, not by military organizations and hull numbers are not used at all except for disambiguation purposes per WP:NC-SHIP. Please read the relevant links I have provided for you. Llammakey (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You also ain't the boss of Wikipedia either, you don't get to make rules. There is no "procedure." I was managing fine before anyone of you showed up. - Battleship Sailor —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

will you come and make your comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_prefixes_used_by_NATO please and not indulge in this sort of response Lyndaship (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Linking
I see that when you edited 373d Fighter Group you added links to a number of US states. Per WP:OVERLINK large geographic areas like states should not be linked (unless there is a specific reason). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are not large geographic areas. Rhode Island is a tiny little island. That is US-centric thinking, that somehow, people from outside the US will know where Delaware is, or what it is. Or the difference between Washington State and Washington D.C. This is not the case of Pacific Ocean or United States. If anything, that entire article needs to be rewritten in a non-US tone because the entire thing reads like it is written for Americans only. Llammakey (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First Rhode Island is not an island. Look at the examples in the style guide for what is a large geographic area.  This has nothing to do with whether or not people know where states are, it has to do with their size.  Normandy, Bavaria, Lombardy, Catalonia, Meath, New South Wales, Prince Edward Island, or Yorkshire should not be linked either, so it has nothing to do with imagined "US-centric" thinking.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It says "This generally includes major examples of" and "generally should not be linked". Firstly, none of the places I linked are major examples of anything. Even New York state had to be linked, to differentiate it from the other mentions of New York. Secondly, two of the places you mentioned (Meath and Lombardy) I had to look up. Thirdly, it's a guideline, not a rule and it does not prohibit it. Please re-read the section before criticizing. Llammakey (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Queen Charlotte (1810 ship)
Hi Liammakey, Just wondering why the move to the 1810 year? It seems to have no particular meaning to her history. She appears to have been Adams from 1807 to 1812, and Queen Charlotte from then on. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the wrong ship. The Queen Charlotte captured at the Battle of Lake Erie was ordered in 1809 and launched in 1810 as a ship-sloop and near sister to HMS Royal George. The brig Adams was captured by the British and converted to the first HMS Detroit. Winfield, Malcomson and Lardas all agree on this. Only Colledge is wrong from what I can see. I'm currently correcting the articles. Llammakey (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great find/catch. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That could be the crew of any ship
Llammakey, have you even checked my sources before editing? That isn't the crew of 'any dutch ship', it's the crew of the HNLMS Holland. This was a big thing in the Netherlands, multiple big newspapers wrote about it. Besides, my source was the official website of the Dutch Defense, and it clearly says: "Crew of the HNLMS Holland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SjoerdvDonk (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, and added more important things from your source. That picture adds nothing to the article about the ship. It's just some sailors partying in New York. Wikipedia is not a news service. It is an encyclopedia, and the article is not about the crew, but about the ship. Please read WP:NOTNEWS and read any other FA class ship article. This kind of nonsense is not encyclopedic. Llammakey (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't the point I'm trying to make. I'm glad you helped me with the picture and removed it because it's irrelevant, but saying that it could be the crew of any ship is just wrong to me. Even though you're 100% right about removing the picture.

Stuart (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As in, they are not standing on Holland. A picture is worth a thousand words, but nowhere in that picture does it show the ship Holland. It just shows a bunch of sailors in New York City. They could be actors dressed up in Dutch sailor uniforms for all the viewer knows unless he reads the caption, and even then, there's nothing about the photo that indicates they are from Holland. The caption should be used to identify the subject matter of the photo, not tell the story. If I were to write that caption, it would be Royal Netherlands Navy personnel on shore leave in New York City because other than the citation identifying them as from Holland, it could be any crew from any Dutch ship. Llammakey (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * True!

Stuart (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge (Canada)
FYI, The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its second anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you've created or expanded (since November 2016) which you haven't already added to the list. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wild Beast-class destroyer (1911)
This class was only so named when Greece purchased them in 1912, in 1911 they were the Argentinian San Luis class. Similarly the individual ships under the Greek names should have a dab of 1912 not 1911 as they were launched under their Argentinian names. Do you mind if I change them? Lyndaship (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Llammakey (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS Monkey
When you reverted me at HMS Monkey, you also reverted the fixes to citations I had made, which included replacing dead links and questionable links, as well as moving bare external links into citation templates. I have restored those fixes, along with the wikilinks you wanted to keep. - Donald Albury 14:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Page moves
As you are aware, there is a discussion ongoing re the use of "the" when referring to ships. Therefore you should undo your recent move(s) of articles whilst the discussion is ongoing, if you would be so kind. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Ban me if you like. I don't like you, so I don't care if you do. Llammakey (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ban you eh? Well, I can do that, question is, should I do it. Answer is probably no. Don't know what I've done to upset you, I'm sure. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Answer is definitely no. What is the problem here? The RM discussion at "Capture of Anne" is both local and active. The proposal at WP:NCS is an absurdly transparent preemptive attempt to influence that RM, (and so far has little support). The page-moves are so far entirely appropriate and supported by the current guideline. Unless the guideline is changed, (which seems unlikely at this point), or there are local discussions on the talk pages of the moved articles that result in consensus(es) to undo the move(s), then none of these moves are improper, nor do they need to be undone. Mjroots, I don't know the origin of the dispute between you and Llammakey, but as a now clearly involved admin, your ban threat is ill-advised. Maybe you should step back and if an admin is needed at some point, allow a uninvolved one with a cooler head to step in. (JMHO) - wolf  10:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you've reported me for following the guidelines. I stopped changing the pages, since you asked so arrogantly, but I see that did nothing to ease your ego. Oh well, all the more reason to dislike you. Hope you have a nice day. Llammakey (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of taking any administrative action against Llammakey. I value my administrative privileges far too much to throw them away on something so trivial as this. I had no idea that Llammakey disliked me until the post on this page. Pretty sure I've not been involved in any disputes either.
 * It is bad form to start moving pages whilst there is an ongoing discussion, regardless of whether or not the discussion is heading towards a consensus for such a move. It is for that reason, and no other, that I asked that the pages be moved back. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So hold on, Mjroots there is no consensus at all to change the rules, and these pages were created without following the rules and you are coming after me for bad faith? How about you use your admin powers to go chastise those people who created the pages with the faulty titles, or the ones who began forum-shopping when their preferred title was nearly voted down? Stop wasting my time. Llammakey (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Creating pages at "faulty titles", when done in good faith, is not actionable. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Byam, Berrington, and Policy
Hi Llammakey, In rating those articles, which I created, you indicated that the articles "contain major omissions or inaccuracies". I am always trying to improve articles so if you could point me to sources that I have overlooked or mistakes I have made, please let me know. I use Google searches and search Lloyd's Register, the Register of Shipping, and other online resources. Are there particular sources you think I should consult? Again, on the errors, please realize that equally reputable sources are often inconsistent. Still, if you have good info that resolves inconsistencies between sources, please tell me. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I just didn't think you were finished the articles. You seem to be able to find these incredible sources, and I have seen you go back and add huge swathes of info to articles. That's the only reason I rated them as C. If you think they are finished I'll go back and give them a B. Llammakey (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. OK. Good. I was afraid that I had missed something. What sometimes triggers a revision is work on a different article that reveals new info that carries over to something I last worked on some time ago. Alternatively, sometimes when someone, like you, catches typos or infelicities in language in an old article that will trigger me to do a quick Google Books search that in some cases turns up a more recently published book where someone has done some original research that I can use. For now, though, those three articles are done. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Llammakey (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ta. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Question
Just wanted your opinion on this article; the title uses "cutting out", and though it's a type of tactic used for capturing a ship, I was wondering if perhaps the more common "capture of (the frigate...) " should be used? Or "Action of..."? Lemme know what you think, thanks - wolf  04:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a valid use of the term since the ship was specifically captured by an armed boarding party rather than taken by a ship in direct combat. However, it might be too technical a nautical term for an article title. Either way, the definite article needs to go, especially for a warship. On further reading, the ship was not even named Hermione when it was cut out, so the entire article needs to be re-thought. Llammakey (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Calibre
At Halifax-class_frigate, perhaps the word calibre doesn't belong, since that means the diameter, as the linked article shows. If there's a basis for the /70 indicating length relative to calibre, please cite it, then this note won't be nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see I should have read that first. I'll clarify in the note. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

USS Lyra (AK-101)
Just curious, why did you add a space after the *? Does not adding a space cause a problem somewhere? I'm just asking so that I'm editing correctly in the future. Thanks!Pennsy22 (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's punctuation. If you use the script to fix dashes, it does it automatically. It also helps when highlighting a link. The space automatically prevents the asterisk from being copied too. Llammakey (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

First Battle of Sacket's Harbor
Howdy, could you take the time to weigh in on the talk page please? Much obliged. MarkMcCain (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

HMS Warspite
There is a discussion on the talk page you might wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

toggle ref check
Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

'''The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check"''' with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

grt
Hi there, I notice you've reverted a few of my edits. Just so you know, I'm not interested in a childish edit-war, and the fact that you've left my re-edits alone suggests that you aren't either, which is good. Essentially, I'm going through a few pages changing grt to gt for vessels still in service. As I'm sure you know, gt replaced grt in 1982 and all ships had to be remeasured in gt (or scrapped) by 1994. So, any page saying a ship "has" a grt needs to be changed. For older vessels like some coastguard ships, it's not always obvious whether the stated tonnage is gt or the original grt. For instance, I've tried to cite Canadian Coast Guard where relevant, but for some reason Wikipedia says its a dodgy site and won't allow it, so it's hard to cite the definitive source. So, when CCG says a vessel has a gt and Wikipedia calls the same number grt, then I'll change it, even if Wikipedia won't allow a direct citation. I'm not sure of the value of quoting the original grt figure, but if it's there then I'll leave it alone. I see neither value nor harm in it. As to whether gt should be upper or lower case … that's an argument I really can't be bothered to get into, though as you can see my preference is for lower case, as is common in the industry. Patrick Neylan (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything has to be cited. If the citation uses GRT, then it remains GRT until you can come up with a cite for GT. As for capitalization, that's the template that does that. GRT can also stay, because the GRT has not changed, GT is a different calculation. If anything the text should say, "the ship was built as and was later remeasured as ." with cites for both numbers. Otherwise, the entire history of the vessel is not being covered. Llammakey (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting dilemma. I've changed a few grt references to gt where the official government page cites the same number but as gt; the problem is, Wikipedia won't allow cites to those pages. Clearly it's gt, and the original Wikipedia statement isn't cited. So, do you retain an uncited figure you know is wrong in favour of an uncitable figure that's almost certainly correct? Does an uncited existing reference have priority over an uncitable new reference?Patrick Neylan (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong. It's a measurement from beforehand. Both numbers are correct because they are different things. If you want citations for gt use www.equasis.org, it is a reliable source that will give you the up to date tonnages. Make sure to state in your notes, you state when the remeasurement was taken, such as I did on CCGS Sir Humphrey Gilbert. Llammakey (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Battle honours on list pages
I saw your comment in the edit summary here and took a look around. I went through all ships from Vanguard to St. Albans on List of active Royal Navy ships. What I found was that 27 of the ships list articles did not have battle honours listed on the list page, and only 4 did. I also saw WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines which gives no instructions that battle honours should be included on the ship list page. Yet, I've learned from Battle_honour that battle honours from prior ships of the same name are indeed carried forward to the currently serving ship, so what you've asserted makes absolute sense.

I had to work to find this information. Had I not read the passage in the battle honours section I would still not know. Perhaps we should codify this somewhere so that others might not make the same error as I did? Perhaps at WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines? What do you think? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that any project guideline suggestions should be taken to the project page. However, in reference to ships in general, older users ignore any and all changes to how the rules were laid out when the project first came to be. Ship indices, like all set indices were made list pages a long time back by others and just trying to straighten that out with the WP:SHIPS participants was a nightmare to the point where admins who work with that project blatantly ignore that codification, even though its part of the MOS. So I wish you all the best, but when admins ignore the rules of that project, that project becomes pretty much moot. Llammakey (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian Gunships
Hi Llammakey I see your interest at List of Royal Norwegian Navy ships and a number of red links under Schooners (Thor, Balder etc). Have you seen the wiki article I prepared a few years ago at Norwegian Gunships ? There may be something of use there, or a some cross-linking for this group of ten perhaps. regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

SS India Arrow
Noticed you rated that as C. Could you provide more input as what specifically is not covered. Could you also explain why for example this article is rated B? Thanks. Crook1 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, sure thing. The lead is too short. Does not cover the entirety of the article. It is more of a lead sentence. It doesn't even mention that the ship was sunk. Also the date format is mixed within the article. Some places have DMY other MDY. It's close to a b. Llammakey (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I will update the article accordingly.Crook1 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict
My apologies, I didn't see you corrected the context on the article for the Aloe-class ships. I believe the issue is settled. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

HMCS Forest Hill
I cannot find any evidence that the Mod Flower Corvette K486 was named Forrest Hill and not Forest Hill. Could you quote a reference please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subspace1250 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:HMCS Forrest Hill. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Belmont-class wikilink
Before I saw your edit note from July 19, 2019, I again removed the wikilink to "Belmont-class" on the USS Belmont page. The reason I removed it is because there is currently no page for "Belmont-class". Given that there were only two ships in the class and Wikipedia already has pages for both of them I think it's unlikely there will ever be a "Belmont-class" page. If one is created then the wikilink can be restored but until then it makes no sense to wikilink to a non-existent page. I will revert my edit and remove the wikilink again but with a more detailed edit note. --Mox La Push (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see you restored the wikilink to "Belmont-class". I'm going to leave it be because it's a pretty trivial matter. However, your position that "red links are ok" seems, in this case, inconsistent with WP:RED. Under the circumstances already mentioned, I don't think "Belmont-class" "could plausibly sustain an article".--Mox La Push (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good for you, however you obviously don't edit ship articles. Per WP:SHIPS all major ship classes are notable, especially ones that had such an important role in the Cold War. But you keep on wiki-lawyering in areas you do not have much knowledge in. Llammakey (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian warships
Thank you for taking the trouble to look over the revamped Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé and for sorting out my little stumbles. I would however like to ask about the Brazilian ship prefixes that you mostly deleted. The Brazilian Navy decided not to use a national prefix like HMS or USS (a "standard ship prefix" as such are referred to in WP:SHIPNAME). But they do officially prefix the ships' names with type-related abbreviations - you can see those in current use at List of ships of the Brazilian Navy, and they are always included in official publications as well as more widely. They are included routinely in many of our individual ship articles (though admittedly not all). We have clear guidance on titling articles where there is no standard ship prefix, but unfortunately nothing on the article text in WP:SHIPNAME. I am certainly very reluctant to exclude these important designations. How do you think that we should best handle this? Davidships (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's included in the text of the article. No need to put it in the infobox because it would only confuse readers into believing it is a national prefix. Llammakey (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Quebec (1781), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/HMS_Quebec_%281781%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/HMS_Quebec_%281781%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Japanese cruiser Chōkai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ROV ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Japanese_cruiser_Ch%C5%8Dkai check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Japanese_cruiser_Ch%C5%8Dkai?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Italic titles
Hello Llammakey - could you help me remove the italic title from C-class lifeboat please, and let me know how to do it. I think it's a parameter in an infobox but I can't work it out. When you've shown me, I can do others (D-class etc...). Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. So I did it for C-class lifeboat. So right at the top of the infobox, right after where it says infobox ship begin, you put in the new parameter |sclass=2. That will remove the italics from the page title. As for any other ship title that needs italicization or is not a ship class, you can always use the parameter |display title=. Hope that helps, Llammakey (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, perfect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Changes to my Photo Caption
Hello. Re your changes to my HMCS Onondaga or Okanagan photo: 1. Just as you're not considered to be in the Atlantic Ocean if you're tied up in (the connected waters of) Halifax harbour, you're not considered to be 'in the Caribbean Sea' if you're alongside at Roosey Roads. 2. A submarine is a boat (look up 'submarine' and 'boat' on WP) and one thing a caption is supposed to do, as I recall, is point out the non-obvious (plus I believe I had a link from 'boat' to 'submarine' and a link to 'Oberon-class submarine'. 3. Sorry about the dot in 'Jan.' (I'm new at this), but 'Jan 1969' is acceptable (and shorter - my preference).  4. 'A' is unnecessary and you could have put 'A' of 'The' in any of the many photos in the 'Oberon-class submarines' article.  BrettA343 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then be direct. Say the boat is tied up alongside at Rosey Roads. The caption is supposed to be descriptive and "boat" is a term that covers a wide number of types of ships. A "submarine" accurately describes what we are looking at, especially when there are things like autoreaders, that read the captions and may make it unclear to the visually impaired. Llammakey (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought accuracy was important and as I state in the photo's description, we were "alongside in some Caribbean port or base; Roosey Roads, I seem to remember." I can say for certain it was the Caribbean (I remember the warmth of the evening), but as Roosey Roads is only marginally (~10 mi) in the Caribbean Sea (if that - I'm not clear on the boundary/extent of the Atlantic/Caribbean), I cannot say anything other than 'the Caribbean' and claim I know it for sure. Also, I'd point out that your suggestion of 'Roosey Roads' would add unnecessary confusion; most people know where the Caribbean is, but not Roosey Roads (besides, do you really care in what I understand is to be a brief description in the caption?... that level of detail can go, and did go, in the description.) And I realize that 'boat' isn't specific, but I did have a link to Wikipedia's 'submarine' article and another to 'Oberon-class submarine' ('boat' was there as an added educational term for those who didn't realise a submarine is a boat). And I think I remember reading that captions should ideally point out things that the article does not. Do autoreaders handle links to more specific articles well? BrettA343 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Linking submarine in boat is WP:EASTEREGG. And yes, precision is always better per MOS:CAPTION which states "Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject". Is Roosey Roads in the Caribbean Sea, yes. Would it be preferable to say Roosey Roads. Yes. Llammakey (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

SS Bolton Castle/Fidelitas
Hi, I added the source required on your page assessment on SS Fidelitas. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed rating to reflect changes Llammakey (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons
Why do you continue to demote Commons links, below even uninteresting (to the majority of readers) notes and references in an effort to hide it away and bury it. Readers would prefer to link through to see other images on the articles not on display on Wikipedia. Do you care nothing for a sister project. Broichmore (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is an external link. Wikipedia is independent of the Commons and are not beholden to "sister projects" and since the majority of readers look at Wikipedia for information and not the "pretty pictures", it is way more important to have the cited information ahead of that. If readers want "pretty pictures" a google image search is much faster than going through a wikipedia article and then clicking on the wikicommons link. Please read External links which states that external links go at the end of the page. Llammakey (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Largely disagree the majority of readers skim the references. The point is we need to raise the profile of Commons so contributors start using it; the majority of articles right across the board don't have links to it. Its more than pretty pictures, and a lot of effort is thrown into it. You can demote the link, justifying it with the policy which is shameful in places, but you should be adding it.Broichmore (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree with everything you just said in there. This is an encyclopedia, not Flickr. Llammakey (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded plenty of images that have either filled in gaps in your stubs, or pointed out where the data contained within was plainly wrong; you overestimate the majority of readers, and no doubt your one of those that sniggered at me when I said Wikipedia ships was pretty much the first portal of call when looking up ships. To say people don't want to see images illustrating articles is plain arrogant and daft. Anyway some Encyclopedia that wants to play games with the language, in the name of style, and continuously bitches over minor points that no one with common sense notices. Broichmore (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said your contributions were bad. Never said adding images to articles was bad. Never said adding external links sections to articles was bad. But one) they are not my articles. I did not create them. I do not have ownership over Wikipedia, I just go around making sure everything is playing by the same rules. Two) As for "style", it is called a WP:MOS. These things called encyclopedias have them. Might I suggest you give it a perusal. It would make your work here even better. 3) Once again, this is not Flickr. It may be the first stop, it does not have to be the only stop. Images, and I have to emphasize this, help illustrate the subject matter, but they do not replace prose. The prose is the most important part. It is what is reviewed during the WP:Featured Article content reviews. So the sourcing is more important than a link to a sister project. Hence why external links go at the end of the article. Wikipedia is not a specialist source and is not a gallery of images. It is an encyclopedia. Llammakey (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have looked at MOS Style, which is not as well written or agreed upon as it should be. There's plenty of fodder there for trolls who are a blight on this project. My English is actually pretty good actually. I specialize in historical images, not those of people blowing bubbles. I disagree that images are as unimportant as your suggesting in that context. I only upload an image to the Encyclopedia if its going to add something to it. Broichmore (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spanish ship San Ildefonso
Two things: Firstly do you agree that this image is of the Spanish ship San Ildefonso, the date of the sketch doesn't fit in with the prose. Secondly why did you, on a clean-up, delete the word the before the name of said vessel. Thanks Broichmore (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way. The shoe company Nike and a ship are both entities that are governed by people but has its own direction. When we talk about the company Nike, we do not use "the" in front of the name unless Nike is used as an adjective. For example "Nike put out its fourth quarter results today" or "Nike has released its new product line." However, when used as an adjective; "the Nike employees decided to go on strike today" or "the Nike board of governors ordered a cut in production." So use of "the" before a ship is acceptable when used as adjective. But when talking about the ship as a noun, the use of "the" is unnecessary, much like it would be with a company. Llammakey (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing technically wrong using the the definite article as a means of breaking up the text, just the same as using she as a substitute for the same reason. What about the identity of the ship? Broichmore (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not preferred, per WP:NC-SHIP. Look, I have tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to read the guidelines then don't complain when someone corrects you. No one says you have to contribute here. You can go make your own website and write like it's 1940. Llammakey (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that that NC-SHIP ship was illegally changed. Style has to do with formatting and getting rid of words that are un-encyclopedic, like amazing, not messing around with plain english as a language which you are, in a cheap way of trolling. Nobody asked you to contribute here either. It's clear here you have no interest in content, only annoying people who do; so why are you here. I didn't learn English in the 40's, English was taught this way right through the 70's and beyond too. Language doesn't date that fast, even today this is still correct and proper English.Broichmore (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are walking a fine line right now. Stop the personal attacks if you do not want to get banned, I suggest you take a break. Llammakey (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

USS Pocahontas (YT-266)
Don't understand your revert. 1942 ships is a subcat of 1940s ships and Country should be added to infobox according to WP:SHIPS guidance Lyndaship (talk)
 * Yeah sorry, I reverted by accident. I thought I caught it before it went through. I was reverting on another page and clicked on the wrong tab. I have reverted my revert. Sorry. Llammakey (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks Lyndaship (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

English ship Dainty (1588)
Hello Llammakey, I want to ask you if you can re-rate Dainty's article, taking into account the large amount of information I recently added to complete the article. Thanks in advance. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Theobald Dillon, 1st Viscount Dillon - dual year
Dear Llammakey. Thank you very much for your corrections of the formatting of the dual years in the article Theobald Dillon, 1st Viscount Dillon; e.g. February 1623/4 -> February 1623/24. There are probably many other occurrences of this type of mistake in other articles that I touched. I believe you are right, but could you please point me to the corresponding instruction in the MOS or in any other Wikipedia guide. I looked at MOS:NUM and could not find a corresponding instruction. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I may not have searched enough, but I have not found this covered in the MOS. However, a precedent for the form "1623/24" is found at Old Style and New Style dates. - Donald Albury 12:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I looked at MOS:DATERANGE. It states under two-digit ending years never to use just a single digit to indicate a year. Llammakey (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Llammakey. Thanks a lot for your trouble. Quite obviously dual years are not date ranges. I have added a new section about dual years on the talk page of MOS:NUM. I hope they will write some guideline for such cases. With Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Daer Llammakey. Sorry, I was very wrong. I somehow oversaw that MOS:OSNS, which is a section of MOS:NUM, clearly prescribes to adjust for a start of year on 1 January. I should therefore never have used dual years. I am busy to remove them all. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

HMS Cossack
Hello! Tell me, please, what to do? thanks depo (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Put it on the Cossack disambiguation page under the vehicle section. That covers all ships, not just the British Navy ones. Llammakey (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!!!depo (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

hello
You can give me a favour? I need a solicitude of restauration for 1      Bomba de tiempo · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 20:09	438	N/A	Registro 2	Plaza Manezhnaya · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 19:39	35	N/A	Registro 3	Okhotny Ryad · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 19:18	148	N/A	Registro 4	BAE Systems HERTI · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 18:14	1 582	N/A	Registro 5	BAE Systems Mantis · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 18:07	967	N/A	Registro 6	Business Tower Nürnberg · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 16:05	3 586	N/A	Registro 7	Niederwalddenkmal · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 15:37	738	N/A	Registro 8	Mahnmal Bittermark · (Borrado)	2019-05-06 15:27	975	N/A	Registro 9	Fischbrunnen · (Borrado) articles in wikipedia spanish. God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generación identitaria (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

MS Zaandam
can you update that article, now there are 4 elderly people die in Covid-19 on that ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.207.134 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article, but the four passengers being dead is already stated in the first paragraph of the pandemic section. Llammakey (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * oh, thanks. can you also update the RV Polarstern about the ships involvement during the pandemic here, my english is not good.


 * No problem. The article has been updated, but the infected crewmember is in Germany and had yet to arrive aboard the ship. Llammakey (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You moved a page and did not respect WP:NC-SHIP
Hello, thanks for moving Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá. On the whole, the move is a positive and you are to be commended. Having said that, WP:NC-SHIP very clearly says that the name of the vessel needs to be in italics. Furthermore, WP:NC-SHIP says "For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers," which in this case is GC-23. Namely, you failed to move the article to Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá (GC-23). Would you kindly fix this error. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. No. Read it again. Pennant numbers are for disambiguation purposes only. If there is only one ship of the name, there is no need for disambiguation. Llammakey (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pullmantur Horizon
Theres a current news about 150 people on board who are tested positive from the virus, (which is huge) which there might be lot of sources will appear in a day due to the passengers state on the ship. Do you think we are able to create an article about that thing.? 222.105.154.87 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my contribution to wikipedia - Origin of french schooner la Belle-Poule.
You stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_schooner_Belle_Poule that "The vessel was constructed in 1932 as a replica of a cod fishing vessel used off Iceland for the French merchant marine school". It is obviously wrong. This boat was ordered for the french naval school ("Ecole Navale") and not for the merchant marine school.I corrected this twice and you undid my edition twice. This kind of vandalizing is unacceptable. Please restore my text or I will report the incident.

PS. if you can read french, just look at the official description of this boat on french navy official website at:

they clearly state (in french) that "L'Étoile à été mise en service le 20 novembre 1932 et la Belle-Poule le 20 juillet 1932". Which means in english that Belle-Poule was commissioned into the French Navy (Ecole Navale) the day the day it was delivered that is the 20th of July 1932. No way it could have been ever commissioned by french merchant navy.

Plus, this boat is somewhat different from french fishing schooners, its hull lines are much narrower and designed for higher speed. It could be qualified as a sail training vessel inspired by XIXth century Dunkerque's sailing schooner which mostly operated off Newfoudland and not off Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.194.143.124 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg FYI: existing discussion at Teahouse. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you own the bloody vessel. Changes without sources are not acceptable and personal experience is not a valid source. Bring reliable secondary sources and you can edit the article however you want. Llammakey (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HMCS Vision
Hello Llammakey, I have recently made a request that the HMCS Vision article be moved or renamed, since every source I've come across says the name of the ship was 'HMCS Vison' McMuff (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Iéna
I don't think that link that you fixed is correct. How could it cover the ship's loss with a date of 1906, a year before she blew up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But if you click on the link provided, it goes to a link giving those details. In all fairness, that editor has a habit of not giving the correct link to his cite, see any list of shipwrecks. Maybe that information is in there on that date, but the link he provided is not to that specific info. I just corrected the citation to what was given. I thought the citation should reflect the article. Llammakey (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll ping him directly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

USRC Commodore Barry
Hi Llammakey, re your page move. I wish you hadn't. I realize that there is no disambiguation needed, but the move throws away information that a naive WP user might find useful. The year situates the vessel in time. I suspect that we get a lot of genealogists, local historians, and others that use WP to find out about some vessel and that little bit of extra info may help them in their search. I had a ship article Blendan Hall (xxxx ship) that some officious person moved to "Blendan Hall" on the grounds that there was no other WP article about any Blendan Hall and so no disambig was needed. That change destroyed two bits of information - that it was a ship, not a building, and the location in time. Net-net, that the disambig is not needed does not make it useless, if not helpful to you or I, it may still be useful to some naive user. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Howdy Acad Ronin. In this case, I don't think that disambiguator helped at all. Actually in all fairness, I don't think the prefix even helps that article. Mainly because most people have never heard of USRC or what it stands for, or what that department of the government even does, but as to the disambiguator in this case, it just seems that it was about some dude named Commodore Barry in 1819. Your Blendan Hall disambiguator I could understand being more informative, and therefore at the very least should have been kept as Blendan Hall (ship), just so the reader doesn't think it was a building. However in the case of Commodore Barry, somebody looking at that title, it would have looked like a year out of a person's life. I agree that sometimes a disambiguator is needed to help with the title, but in this case, ship might have been more helpful than either the date or the prefix. Llammakey (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with you re USRC, especially as the Coast Guard's name changed over time. I haven't checked, but I suspect that USRC is an anachronism. The problem with calling something Blendan Hall (ship) is that it is too generic. In the early days of WP, some Australians made stubby articles on convict ships to Australia, and called them something like Albion (ship), thereby bogarting the more general/upper level name. As I find other vessels name Albion, etc. I have had to engage in moves to free up the general name. I really don't like the idea of calling such index pages "List of ships named Albion", with one of the names on the list being Albion (ship). I suspect that people looking for a ship named Albion type in Albion, and find their way quickly to Albion (ship), and can drill down from there. As the economist Thomas Sowell once said, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs." Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)