User talk:Lyndaship/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: HMS Oswald (N58) (November 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:HMS Oswald (N58) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:HMS_Oswald_(N58) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:HMS_Oswald_(N58) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HMS Oswald (N58) (November 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:HMS Oswald (N58) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:HMS_Oswald_(N58) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SwisterTwister&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:HMS_Oswald_(N58) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  04:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions (ships)
Hi. Please read Naming conventions (ships) before your next page move. The article you moved to Le Malin is supposed to be located at French destroyer Le Malin. Manxruler (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me right and providing the link. I'm still learning and I acted on some erroneous advice Lyndaship (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay. What I did, back in the day, was to look at established articles and find inspiration in the style/editing employed there. That especially goes for major edits like page moves, which are often hard to undo without admin tools.
 * By the way, HMS Oswald (N58) is definitely notable. Could do without uboat.net as a source, but the submarine is absolutely notable. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, your draft is better than many other drafts by new editors. What I would recommend to do regarding Oswald is to look at YUGOSLAV SUBMARINE Nebojša, which a featured article on a submarine, and use the set-up employed there (a lead and sections on construction, career, etc.). Manxruler (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

On Le Malin I have a bee in my bonnet in that someone in the past has removed all the Le and L' from all the Le Fantasque class destroyers ( and also the Current Le Triomphant class submarines ). I asked for L'Audacieux to be moved from Audacieux and someone said it should not have the french destroyer bit included and moved it that way - I see its been corrected now to conform. On Oswald I did include uboat.net in the second draft which was also rejected on notability grounds. Given up now trying to persuade non ship editors that it is notable - had replied to both rejectors pointing out that all the other 5 of the class have individual pages.Lyndaship (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see how that happened. Well, now those things are cleared up, and the article moved to the correct location. As for Oswald, I find it very strange that any reviewer would doubt that submarine's notability. Odd indeed.
 * What I meant when I mentioned uboat.net earlier, is that that website isn't a very good source. If we look at the website's list of authors, there doesn't seem to be any historians or other recognized experts, only computer people and such. Manxruler (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding links
A tip regarding editing; when you add links, please make sure said links are correct. Here you added a link to a disambiguation page rather than to a proper article. This is the correct link to add in that case). I've seen you adding incorrect links numerous times lately (various editors have been fixing them), so please be careful and check your links before saving them. Preview is our friend. Manxruler (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give some more examples of the numerous times you have spotted? I accept I got Vaga wrong and also Grenville. Preview is certainly my friend, is tact yours?Lyndaship (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, for example this (U-333 and U-736) which was fixed here, or this (fixed here). I myself often try to click links before saving the preview, to make sure I got the links correct. As for tact, all I offered was a little friendly constructive advice. It was certainly not my intention to offend you, and I apologize if that was the result. Manxruler (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was tetchy. The comment "numerous" which to me means beyond number annoyed me. I own up to the two as mentioned before but on the other two examples you give I'm not sure I understand. Another editor who I asked on his talk page said that you can either use the template format with {{ brackets or the direct link with Lyndaship (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly okay. With regards to the U-boats, what I meant to point out is that if you merely link like this: U-333, you create a redirect. By linking like this: U-333 you get a direct link to the article, which is most often preferable. Linking only "U-some number" will often lead to a redirect to the desired U-boat article, but at times will lead to disambiguation pages (for example linking to U-234 would lead to a disambiguation page). Manxruler (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HMS Oswald (N58) has been accepted
 HMS Oswald (N58), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Naraht (talk) 18:18, 24 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=HMS_Oswald_(N58) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Loss of MV Darlwyne - your recent edit
I agree that geographically, "Whitsand Bay" makes more sense that "Whitesand Bay" which is on the western Cornish shore. Do you have a source that indicates that the body was washed ashore at Whitsand Bay? Both of the principal sources refer to "Whitesands (sic) Bay", but this could be a case of copied error. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aghhh caught out! I made the assumption that you had simply confused Whitesands Bay and Whitsand Bay. Having checked I can also only see the two primary sources which state Whitesands. I think that this is a typo.

Proposed deletion of HMS Eglinton
Hello, Lyndaship. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, HMS Eglinton, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about HMS Eglinton
Hello, Lyndaship,

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

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,

 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

HMS Eglinton
Hu Lyndaship, good day. Is your intention as per the article above for as a list for all ship named with HMS Eglinton xxx or you intent to make it as a disamguation page? If it is a list then the title/name needs to change, if not then a disamb tag need to be place. Kindly advised. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It should indeed be a list and not a disambugation page and looking at HMS Hood for example I can see the title should be List of ships named HMS xxxx. However I created it using the script as I have seen frequently used, it would appear that the correct script should be . Don't know a simple way to resolve now Lyndaship (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Italian ship disambiguation pages.
I've noticed that twelve of the Italian Ship disambiguation pages that you worked on have an improper usage of Template:Italic title prefixed. For example: Italian destroyer Lanciere has. The number in the template needs to be equal to the length of the words prior to the actual ship name including any internal spaces. Since "Italian destroyer" is 17 characters long, the number needs to 17. As it turns out "Italian Submarine" is also 17 characters long, so that would also be 17. Glad you created those pages, just letting you know the proper usage of the template. I'm currently correcting them which will make the ship name show up in Italics.Naraht (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I will do them right in future. Lyndaship (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, the place that I found these is Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications.Naraht (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Flower-class corvettes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip & Son ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Flower-class_corvettes check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Flower-class_corvettes?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (French ship L'Adroit) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating French ship L'Adroit, Lyndaship!

Wikipedia editor Barkeep49 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for creating a disambig page."

To reply, leave a comment on Barkeep49's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nominations
Hello Lyndaship, I'm just contacting you to remind you that when you nominate a page for speedy deletion, you should notify that page's author. This seems to have been overlooked at Geitz Machine Inc.. I've let them know, so no major issue, just please remember going forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Passing comment, if you install WP:TW it will automatically give welcomes and notification of CSDs with reasons when you tag an article, I definitely recommend checking it out. me if you have any further questions  —   IVORK  Discuss 23:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Shi chao niu he
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Shi chao niu he. —  IVORK  Discuss 23:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (HMS Thruster) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating HMS Thruster, Lyndaship!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for your hard work creating all these pages."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RE:US subs
Those information that I edited to the infobox are all come from navsource, I don't know it's site original information are come from DANFS or other site.

If you want me to cites it, i can quote this site as reference because i don't have any book resources , just website.

But just quote them just as External link ? Don't need to note everyone ? -- Comrade John (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I added the External link source, the navsource one in USS K-1 article , see if you think this is appropriate. --Comrade John (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

DAB pages: Italian destroyer Dardo / Italian destroyer Bersagliere
Hi. I see you've just created a large number of DAB page, which is great. But Italian destroyer Dardo and another for Italian destroyer Bersagliere each contain just two redlinked entries and nothing else. Can you confirm you're going to create these two articles very soon? Otherwise I don't see much rationale for retaining a page to disambiguate two articles that don't exist here. In future, and to avoid unnecessary work for reviewers at WP:NPR, might I suggest you create the articles prior to creating pages to disambiguate them? It's fantastic that you're working to improve access to articles on ships, by the way. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your encouragement. You're not the first to misunderstand that Index pages are not DAB pages (see the ships project page). Can I refer you to WP:SETINDEX and the linked ships project page for index creation. Red links are fine as the index page gives some detail about a notable ship and the links enable you to go to the class to get more detail. If there is no index page a reader will not even be aware that the ship they are looking for could be one of two or more - have a look at Italian ship Artigliere - 3 different ships in 11 years and two even of the same class, without the index page someone would only be told about one of these when they searched wikipeda Lyndaship (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have exactly the same problem as with these pages. There is nothing in WP:SETINDEX that suggest that it is fine to create it with only redlinked entries. The exemple that you gave has a bluelinked entry. I am sure that you should be linking at least one blue link. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Raise it at the ships project page then. Its been raised before. As I explained on Artigliere without the index page someone searching for Italian destroyer Artigliere would be directed solely to the blue linked one and on an all red linked one would be directed to the ship class pages or if they didn't exist might be directed nowhere! Lyndaship (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the point. The Artigliere page has a blue linked entry. And as per WP:CSC this meets the third type of list, short lists with notable and non notable entries. Your new lists have no notable entires. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I do so wish editors could communicate face to face and not through a screen, it would be so easy then to show how index pages even with all redlinks benefit the users. All the ships redlinked are likely to be notable as they are commissioned warships and over 100 tons and 100 foot Lyndaship (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now why on earth would you want to communicate face to face with users and how would you show them how index pages benefit users? That has got to be one of the oddest things I have ever read here ? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgive the ping but we've been in so many threads I didn't want you to miss it. I think I deserve a prize if this is one of the oddest things you have ever read in your wikipedia experience. Basically the benefit of face to face is the ease of explaining, in any dispute you can fire messages between one another quoting Unit standing orders, Company Manual, School regulations or mummys house rules or you can call the other person to come around your side of the desk and demonstrate This is the problem, this is what I want to achieve, this is how I want to do it and you get an understanding and a speedy resolution. Now then as an example of the benefit of ship index pages even with red links lets say for some reason you want to find out about an Italian ship called Stromboli so you go to google and get many results about the protected cruiser and Oiler and then to wikipedia which will after some playing in the search box produce an article on the cruiser - theres no ship index page, sadly though the period you are looking for is WWI and theres no mention anywhere on wikipedia of the patrol boat Stromboli so you go away thinking wikipedia is a very incomplete encyclopedia. With a ship index page you would get as result number 1 Italian ship Stromboli which would show the list of all ships called that, you would see a link to the cruiser article which stated years in service so you would know its not that one, a red link to the oiler but again not the period you want and a redlink to the patrol boat with some basic details so you had found out it exists. wikipedia is more complete, the same argument pertains if all the ships were redlinked - theres still more information than having no mention at all. Furthermore if the ship is in a class usually in the info given the class article exists and is bluelinked. Some editors will redirect the individual redlinked ship to the class article making it blue but I don't favour this as to do so will make a circular redirect from the mention on the class page back to the class page and also makes it less obvious that the article on the ship is not yet created. I appreciate your arguement that having lots of redlinks makes wikipedia look very incomplete but I would counter having no mention of a notable ship at all makes it even more incomplete Lyndaship (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest it sounded a bit.like you wanted me yo step outside to settle it face to face...then a little while after I noticed someone refer to you as she so what you say makes more sense now! like I said I have no problem with redlinks and I understand the point behind having them. When someone searches Wikipedia it is for information on a subject and without a bluelinked article or references they come up against a lack of verifiable information. What I think is that as you have the sources you could have created a stub article for 1 or both of the ships and then created the Set Index page. This makes so much more sense IMHO. A list article with only redlinks (and a SETINDEX is a list article) should at.least.be sourced as per the guidelines. There are something like 700 ship list articles that are sourced and I do not understand why no one was willing simply to add the references. That was really my main concern as a new pages reviewer. One of the other editors from the project did the job of creating a stub for one of the ships with sources and now there is no issue with the page as it.meets WP:CSC. If someone had done that from the start we could have all done something more productive with our time. I have asked for advice at the new pages patrol project how best to deal with only redlinked SETINDEX pages. Notabilty and guidelines at project pages such as ships do not trump general policy and editing guidelines. Anyway I think we understand each other and hope this discussion was constructive as we are all here to build a better encyclopedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting your desire to improve wikipedia or your good faith. I would like to have stub articles but creating the index pages first creates a framework and is a quicker way of getting some information on wikipedia. I would also point out that generally the ship class article is bluelinked on an index page. There are some 6000 ship index pages and only 700 of them have any inline sources and generally these are cites for only 1 ship in the list or other things mentioned like battle honours so despite policy its obviously not being done. Even stub articles take sometime to create correctly, interestingly enough on Uragano the class article bluelinked on the index page gives more information on the individual ship than the newly created stub - fate which also has the wrong weapon details in the general characteristics box, I'll correct them when this debate has died down. Lyndaship (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a quick random look at a dozen or so of the 5300 other pages without refs and every one I looked at (with a couple of exceptions) had at least one bluelinked ship and as such met WP:CSC. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok but don't index pages qualify under criteria 1 of WP:CSC "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Lyndaship (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is possible that some ship lists will meet these requirements but that requires sources for each entry as the key word is verifiably a member of the listed group. Basically it means (as far as I can tell and from the different discussions I have participated in) if the list is likely to be very long (eg. businesses in the UK) then each business has to be notable because the list would be too long otherwise. If it were hosepipe manufacturers in the UK and the complete list is relatively short then it is allowed to have a mix of notable and nonnotable entries so long as they are sourced as being part of the list. Not all ships are notable so a list of ships named Foo can have ships that are neither red nor blue linked but they have to all be sourced as being part of the group. There are a lot of these ship name articles that do not meet these requirements (5300!!!) Nethertheless WP:LISTVERIFY requires sources. That said I think that it would be futile to tag all these articles as lacking sources so long as at least one is bluelinked. That is my opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

HMS Curacoa
Hi, can certainly add in a sentence concerning George V's visit and John C. Porte to make the link clearer. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Italian ship Tifone
Hello, Lyndaship. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Italian ship Tifone, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Italian ship Uragano
Hello, Lyndaship. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Italian ship Uragano, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Index of ships with only redlinked entries
Hi don't understand all the ship index pages that you are creating for redlinked ships. Are you sure you should not wait until there is at least one article before creating an index? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stand-alone_lists says "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." and as you have supplied no sources and none of the entries have their own pages yet there is nothing to show that at least one is notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All commissioned warships are inherently notable per WP:MILUNIT. Llammakey (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be the case but all lists have to have sourced and these are not. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you may have misread WP:MILUNIT as it says "The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion:" (my bolding). Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Give me about three days and I will source all these set indexes for you. My ship resources are at home and I am currently at work. Llammakey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My source for all these articles are Italian Warships of World War I and Italian Warships of World War II both by Aldo Fraccaroli and in the Ian Allen series. Doubtless they could also be sourced to Conways. Lyndaship (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a ship index page not a dab page or list page see WP:SETINDEX. Redlinks are fine, it creates a page in the category List of Italian Ship Names enabling people to see that there are more then one ship of that name. See earlier on my talk page or the ships project page to see previous editors who have been confused by this Lyndaship (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please supply a link to the conversation on the ships project talk page that backs this up. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry one thing I have never been able to work out is diffs but if you look here on my talk page you will see other editors querying the creation of index pages and theres one mention on the current WP:SHIPS talk page. I'll post to the page drawing other editors attention to the conversation we are having here or maybe you would prefer to continue there with editors who are better versed in policy and procedure than myself? Lyndaship (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Lynda - here ya go: Help:Diff (it's not at all difficult to post diffs, and it is really something you should know).
 * @Dom - jmho, but redlinks help encourage article creation. We should keep them whenever possible, regardless of the circumstances, if they are likely to be of notable content. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wolf child just to be clear I do not have a problem with redlinks at all and even in this case they are fine so long as the article conforms to the basics and that is that they are verifiable. I was asking if a stand alone lists should contain just redlinks which may be permissible from what I can gather so long as they are sourced which these articles weren't. I suggested that may be it would be better to create at least one article before the list. One of the project members has done just that. This seems to be a more logical way of doing it otherwise it's putting the cart before the horse. I personally believe that the.more unsourced articles there are the more WP loses.its credibility. And lists that are just redlinks seems so illogical in am encyclopedia.Dom from Paris (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Greek ship Aspis
Hello Lyndaship. I edited the page you started Greek ship Aspis to correct errors in the use of Template:Ship (removing the "0" parameter, and to include SS Aspis, since this is a page about ships, not just navy ships. Hope that's helpful.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of Acme Tackle Company
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Acme Tackle Company. I do not think that Acme Tackle Company fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because '''"The Little Cleo has been deemed by Field & Stream to be one of the 50 greatest lures of all time" is a claim of significance. Indeed it has been a metaphorical hook on WP:DYK, as well as a literal hook in some fishes mouths.'''. I request that you consider not re-tagging Acme Tackle Company for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Personally I think if something is the 50th best its more an admission of insignificance. I'll stick the article up at AfD Lyndaship (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: International Sports Management
Hello Lyndaship. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of International Sports Management, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having been founded by a notable person indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI, WP:CCSI). Thank you. <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 11:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok but it's an essay. Frankly that's ridiculous, on that basis if a notable person bought an ice cream van the page for the van could not be speedy deleted Lyndaship (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Weathervane Restaurant
Hello Lyndaship. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Weathervane Restaurant, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previously declined (in 2009) / claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 12:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ARA Rivadavia
Hi! While I appreciate the bold action here, please make sure that you're taking the correct action first. The battleship is clearly the primary topic vs. a ship that was never completed. That's why I'm about to move what is currently ARA Rivadavia to ARA Rivadavia (disambiguation), and move the battleship from ARA Rivadavia (1911) back to ARA Rivadavia. Cheers, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. I don't think I was being bold and I do think I was being correct. WP:SHIPS states that if two ships share the same name they should be dabbed by date of launch or acquisition unless one of the ships is so well known (and it gives the examples of HMS Victory and HMS Beagle) that it should form the primary topic. I don't think the second Rivadavia fills that criteria and as the earlier Rivadavia was ordered, laid down and launched under that name both Rivavdavias should be dabbed by date. I feel your action removing the date dab from the battleship and creating a disambiguation page is somewhat of a fudge and clumsy. However it certainly does the job as a workaround and saves a lot of dabbing in articles so I'm going to leave it and will use the same procedure for ARA Moreno when I create a shipindex page for that name. On the disambiguation page can you check your sources about the information you have changed as there are a number of important differences from my original page creation and I believe are incorrect. Lyndaship (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Lyndaship, while I'd generally agree with all that, I think this is a bit of a strange case for which this is the best solution. The specific wording at WP:NCSHIP is "" I believe that when readers type "ARA Rivadavia" in the search bar, they are almost certainly be looking for the battleship—the earlier Rivadavia never entered service with Argentina nor was officially named, and is therefore far less known than the battleship of the same name. I'll look at the dab page later today, as I think you're right there. I'm not sure why I had it in my mind that it was purchased from the Italian Navy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Figured out where it came from—thought I'd gone crazy. I'm asking about this over at User talk:Sturmvogel 66. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected now. Pretty sure Conway's is wrong in saying that they were originally ordered by Italy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly a lot of confusion on these ships. There's a pic of Rivadavia's launching at http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/Buques1900a1970/Cruceros-Acorazados/Kasuga/Rivadavia1902-DEHNx11.jpg proving that she did launch under the Argentinian flag and name so I'll amend the dab page to delete the "named or intended to be named" bit. As to the Miltra or San Miltra name (sources vary) given on initial ordering by Argentina I'm going to leave that out Lyndaship (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

1st Airborne Task Force (Allied)
Re. What book is this from? I would like to add it to me library. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. All the books are listed in the references section Lyndaship (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Operation Atalanta revert
Hello Lyndaship. I noticed you reverted my edit to Operation Atalanta, with the justification that the Italian Navy uses a space for their pennant numbers. This is a reasonable approach, though previously our articles on Italian ships did not use a space. The ones that do now, eg. Italian ship Elettra (A 5340), do so because you started mass moving them last month. I have no problem with the use of spaces as long as we are consistent. Your revert however undid many useful edits:
 * Linking to correct articles and terms were undone - eg FREMM multipurpose frigate was restored to FREMM-class frigate.
 * Valid red links, eg Enseigne de vaisseau Jacoubet (F794) and Marne (A630), (you should be aware of WP:REDLINK by now) were removed.
 * Links to actual articles, eg NRP Vasco da Gama (F330) were removed.
 * Proper formatting, eg RFA Lyme Bay (L3007), was removed.
 * Factual errors, such as the pennant number of Carabiniere which I had corrected, were reintroduced (though I see you noticed this afterwards and corrected it again).

It is your responsibility to make sure that good edits are not lost in a revert. If in doubt, please take more time to understand the edits, and make manual alterations if necessary, rather than carrying out a blanket revert. I have restored the majority of my edits, while changing the links and the display of the Italian ships to use the spaced pennant number. Please be more discerning when to use reverts in future. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I refer you to WP:Ships talk Archive 53 where the decision was made to correct the Italian Pennants. If you had looked at the edit history on Atalanta or on any of the Italian ship links before your bold edit you would have seen that I had corrected the pennants in recent edits and you should have asked yourself why they had been changed. Your edits were a mess breaking many links and introducing wrong names for ship classes and deserved to be reverted in toto. In due course I would have gone through them in detail to see if any other than the Carabinere should be reinstated. I take exception to someone hiding behind an IP trying to lecture me on procedure Lyndaship (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I've gone through your edits now. On reflection it would have been better if I had waited until I had time to review them properly but I would still have reverted you once I did so as the number of errors introduced (the Italian Pennants, the FREMM as opposed to Bergamini and the Sirocco link error) exceeded the number of improvements. However if I had waited then I would have reintroduced your improvements after the reversion. When I looked quickly this morning I saw the FREMM one, the Carabiniere (which I mistakenly thought was an error, the Sirocco, the pennants and then the Aviso (which is not a ship type we use) coupled with wrong Spanish prefixes (which you had perpetuated on the links) and thought get rid of this of this half-baked edit by an IP editor quick and look at it later. Then I could also have wikified the links and deleted the made up ship prefixes. So yes I acted in haste but you should check everything before editing and then the situation would not have arisen Lyndaship (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

1st Airborne Task Force (Allied)
Re. What book is this from? I would like to add it to me library. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. All the books are listed in the references section Lyndaship (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So there was no copyvio? I'll have to revert your changes then.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I understand now. The copyvio was not from a book but were cut and paste from two websites. If you look at the previous version you can see the cites in the removed section and check yourself. Lyndaship (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I have a shelf of books waiting for me to get around to updating this article and others on the same campaign. Didn't mean to sound harsh.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sandhya Jane
Hello Lyndaship. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sandhya Jane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nabomita Mazumdar
Hello Lyndaship. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nabomita Mazumdar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you help with SS Choctaw
Would you mind having a look at weather the photos are licensed correctly. GreatLakesShips retagged them yesterday, but I'm not sure that they are tagged correctly since I am not the best with this type of thing. Thank you in advance A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't - it's something I know nothing about Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks annyways :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Guard Ship
Hello Lyndaship, HMS Rodney, her duties conformed to this statement: "A port or major waterway may be assigned a single guardship which would also serve as the naval headquarters for the area." and yes the bread and butter was coastguard activities. Coastguard is a big word here covering a multitude; Guard / coastguard / reserve... There were a long succession of such vessels (equivalent to Rodney) on the Forth; it was a plum job, from memory, Beatty held it at one point. The deficiency here is in the (loose if not messy) article Guard ship, where it doesn't properly handle the terms Reserve and Coastguard, or even Special in this particular instance. Though it does say ...the historic equivalent of a Reserve fleet. The Forth (Queensferry) was always a special reserve installation, majorly installed in North Queensferry, minorly in South. Rodney would have been at anchor off Inchkeith. http://www.scotlandswar.co.uk/pdf_Queensferry.pdf and https://www.ebay.ie/itm/1896-HMS-EDINBURGH-COASTGUARD-SHIP-QUEENSFERRY-BATTLESHIP/123168180123?hash=item1cad65479b:g:R5sAAOSwl9BWJVIDWhat. What is the point your making here? Broichmore (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I upset you. The source given in the article states that Rodney was allocated to Coastguard duties and her district stretched from just south of the Firth of Forth up to Cape Wrath. This seems rather anomalous with the concept of a static guard ship. The guard ship article you linked to I agree is messy and incomplete but doesn't cover a ship on coastguard duties at all. The source also states that coastguards were part of the crew - I find that strange for a RN ship solely acting as a port guardship. I can see nothing in http://www.scotlandswar.co.uk/pdf_Queensferry.pdf about guardship, coastguard duties, or HMS Rodney - perhaps you could enlighten me what I should be looking for in it. Nor can I see nothing relevant in the ebay link not that I would believe anything there. I suggest you rewrite the guard ship article with sources supporting your contention that coastguard duty = port guard ship in this period before you relink Rodney to it and/or provide sources that Rodney was designated the port guardship. So my point is you changed something when the existing source says something different leaving that cite in place Lyndaship (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: HMS Eaglet
Good morning,

I see why you reverted the article for fitting into an exsisting framework. To prevent confusion and having two pages of Eaglet, do you think it would be appropriate to have this info in the 'History' section of the other page?

Also having just read around and presented on the subject of Eaglet I may make revisions to the content of that ship list but references will be cited.

Best Regards M1hr (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes Wikipedia is very confusing and pedantic about its conventions. Its certainly appropriate to have the info about the shore base in the index page but I think it's already there. Index pages should just have a brief line about each ship, typically launched and scrapped plus the most noteworthy fact if there is one (generally there's not). Eaglet shore establishment doesn't need any info about the other Eaglets unless they were Eaglet shore establishment. Eaglet shore establishment will benefit from expansion, I'm sure there's lots more to tell. General rule is add what you want (provided it's sourced) and if somebody deletes you can discuss why you feel it belongs. Happy editing Lyndaship (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pamela Alexander at Lady Eleanor Holles School
I've reverted your edit as all the details about Pam Alexander were correct, just the link was wrong. I've removed the link and added references. Thanks for spotting this.Rhanbury (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Destroyer flotilla
Hello HMS Barfleur (D80) is not showing as a unit within the 3rd Destroyer Flotilla from 1947 to 1951. Also the article claim is incorrect because in Mackies, 3rd Destroyer Squadron Captain (D) list it does not mention Commander K C Grieve RN as officer commanding that squadron 1953-1954.--Navops47 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I see you've put the citation needed tag on it. Probably just a typo from long ago, think I would just have deleted it as you have sources which disprove it Lyndaship (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ship prefixes
Hello Lyndaship,

I do not wish to engage in an editing war with you, but I respectfully ask to you to NOT remove the prefixes from the pages of the NATO Maritime Groups. Yes, you are correct, some NATO countries do not officially use prefixes for their ships, BUT it has been long standing NATO policy that if a NATO country does not use one, they assign one to them and becomes official from NATO's view. Neither of us are wrong, but it's not fair to call them "made up prefixes" either, and should stay when listed.


 * I can see you point as the article is about a NATO organisation but I do not think that trumps the need for continuity in when we use ship prefixes on Wikipedia. I will raise the matter at the WP:SHIPS board to seek further opinion Lyndaship (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * NATO does not rule over our style guide. Our style guide precludes made up prefixes. Do not use made up prefixes. I am removing them momentarily. Llammakey (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Cornish people
Hello, Thank you for your message. The category People from Cornwall has a note that people born or raised in Cornwall belong to that category rather than to "Cornish people". Other removals can be explained on the basis that Cornish people is a parent category of another category attached to that article which seems unnecessary duplication, e.g Cornish writers. You are right to say there has been no prior consensus.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad revert
Sorry about my revert of you at Cru, I was aiming for User:Faradorian's edit an your got their first. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for apologising, I guessed that was the case. The important thing is that he was reverted Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons Category naming
I don't have the books (or easy access to them) to counter whats been said here: ''Virtually all reliable maritime literature, shipping registers, newspapers and journals, shipowners, shipping databases etc use year of completion as the general reference point, even if the date of launching is also included. It is en.wiki which the outlier on this. I am aware that at one time Lloyd's Register used year of launch, but it didn't last long (and of course in the days of sail there was rarely any difference, with some ships going straight to the loading berth from the launching ways).'' Do I even need it. I find no real difficulty in finding a launch date for virtually every ship, I come across! Grateful for your comments. Broichmore (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Lyndaship, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ALyndaship 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 autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

HMS Gloucester
Hi. Just wanted to chat about one of your recent reversions of my edits at HMS Gloucester (62). I'm fine with most of them but this one with the edit description, "despite the reliable source..." caught my eye. Setting aside the removal of text supported by a reliable source, the treatment of the survivors is also mentioned by other sources. Would you be willing to accept some of the text to be reinserted if an additional source is provided (perhaps rephrased as well if you aren't happy with the wording)? Or do you have a more fundamental issue with the edit? 79.72.73.43 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult one. The source you provided is totally reliable but I found the writers assertions dubious to such an extent that I didn't search myself as I should have done to check so if you have found other RS which support it then maybe it should go back in. I say maybe as I'm not sure that it is relevant to the article but I'm quite happy to let others decide. Thanks for improving the article Lyndaship (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll need to go back to the books for the most reliable information; certainly Ken Otter refers to the prisoner situation but there may be others I can find as well. In terms of relevance to the article I see two reasons for reinsertion:
 * 1. Some of the sources make clear that the German's actions of killing defenceless sailors in the water was in retaliation to the British killing of defenceless German soldiers in the water a day or two before hand. Without including the reliably sourced background, the article will just show the fact that the Germans slaughtered the Gloucester men; while I doubt many will dispute the "WW2 Germans are evil"TM argument, the presence of sources would tend to require the addition of context to provide neutrality. Depending on how it is handled in the other sources I will be happy to present it as an opinion of the secondary source(s).
 * 2. I see a key requirement of any article on the sinking of a ship to be whether the crew were rescued. In this case the sources suggest some of the Germans tried to execute and starve the prisoners so the point of "rescue" would be their transfer to the relative safety of the POW camp. If any of the surviving crew have a notable story from that point then it should be covered in their own article.
 * If you are still uncertain on these two points I will be happy to seek another opinion. 79.72.73.43 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking online I find several references to the Germans machine gunning (and one to bombing but I think that can be considered a bomb which was aimed at the ship and fell among crew who had already abandoned ship) survivors in the water. I have found no contemporary or reliable claims that it was in retaliation for the losses inflicted on the German troop convoy. So yes the machine gunning should be mentioned.
 * I agree that as long as the survivors remained a body the subsequent treatment should be mentioned. I still have doubts about that Independent article though as it strikes me as full of journalistic licence. I don't have Otters book but its not quite RS being his only book and from a publisher which Amazon lists three books from and he has a personal interest. However regardless its clear there are sources for your edits so I accept they should stand. Thanks for engaging Lyndaship (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

S Class Destroyers
Hello Lyndaship-I don't want to get into another little spat over this article, but I fear you are mistaken: RN vessels had Pendant Numbers until 1948, (when the term was changed to Pennant Number). See the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennant_number, also Dittmar and Colledge p.10. Since all of the S Class destroyers had been scrapped by 1948, you have introduced an anachronism by changing the original 'Pendant' to 'Pennant'.Dfvj (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting and something I was not aware of. I've read Dittmar and Colledge and I agree there is certainly justification for referring to pendant numbers. The wiki page for pennant numbers was changed back in 2012 to sort of reflect the statements in the book specifically changing pennant to pendant in the text but without a source. I'm particularly concerned the article did refer to a Naval Pennant list in 1910 but this was changed to Naval Pendant list in 1910, that would appear to be the original document and would prove one way or the other. The sources in the article do not refer to pendant numbers and the external link although titled Pendant numbers refers to pennants throughout the text. I also came across a non RS claiming although spelt pendant they were always pronounced pennant. So all in all although not totally convinced I accept on the basis of one RS the use of pendant instead of pennant in this case could be correct. However, I do not think your assertion that the RN referred to them as pendants until 1948 is correct, at the very latest I think in 1924 when the use of the full stop between the flag superior and the number was discontinued was likely to be when they were officially referred to as pennants and therefore for the majority of these ships service pennant is definitely correct. I won't object if you change it back to Pendant but I think a footnote to the tables is appropriate. Lyndaship (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Jane's Fighting Ships was still referring to Pendant numbers in 1931 - although whether or not that counts is debateable. Perhaps the more important question is, as we are writing for people in the present rather than in the past, what is the easiest for readers to understand. The Wikipedia article is at Nigel Ish (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just checked some of the other copies of Jane's I have: they are still called Pendant Numbers (and the list was furnished by the Admiralty, so the naming is presumably authoritative) in the 1949-50 edition; but they are Pennant Numbers in the 1956-7 edition; (I think the change occurred when NATO started, and a standardized list was developed, but I have no authoritative reference for that: just something I think I remember reading somewhere). I concede we are definitely writing for the modern audience; my opinion is we should not be misleading the general reader by giving them a term we know to be anachronistic; and we do include a link to the appropriate article, where everything is explained; but I will defer on this point.Dfvj (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Janes in 1953 were still referring to Pendant numbers. In the 1914 edition it makes no mention of Pendant or Pennant numbers and Le Fleming says in his preamble that on the outbreak of war (WW1) the admiralty instituted a system of pennant numbers. It would be nice to have some definitive answers but until then I am so glad Nigel Ish pointed out we can use the terms current readers are most familiar with Lyndaship (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Signal!: A History of Signalling in the Royal Navy, Kent, Barrie H. (2004) p. 171 says that the change was made between 1950 & 1952 when the British adopted the Allied Naval Signals Book after the formation of NATO, which was based on American spellings and terminology (the precise phrasing is the new books were printing "within 18 months" of the committee forming in 1950, so 1952 is an educated guess). He says specifically that British pendant became the American pennant. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a good find Lyndaship (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The Oxford English Dictionary has the words ″pendant″ and ″pennant″  both meaning ″a tapering flag″ (there is no mention of British vs. American usage favouring one over the other).  The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea gives the following definition: ″pennant, sometimes written as pendant, but always pronounced pennant... is a narrow tapering flag...″ The evidence from copies of Jane's supports the version given in Barrie Kent's book, i.e. that the British Admiralty officially used the term ″pendant″ until the early fifties, when ″pennant″ became standard. Le Fleming was writing in the sixties, and thus is not primary source for what term was used in 1918-45.  The full stops between flag superiors and numbers from photographs don't seem to have been painted on the ships's sides after c.1925; the Admiralty Fleet Orders at http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/admiralty-fleet-orders/1910-1937 might have an explanation, though I haven't time to look right now.  (All this still does not give an unequivocal answer to which term should be used in the S Class article!)Dfvj (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of minor points to note for claríty.
 * Barrie Kent makes a point that the American navy's choice of spelling and terminology was adopted over the Admiralty's traditional choice. He does not refer to the acceptability of "pennant" as a spelling in wider society.
 * Unless you have access to the premium version of OED, the dictionary will only show you current definitions and occasional notes on etymology and usage. As pennant was officially adopted by the Admiralty in the 1950s it will of course be listed as an acceptable British spelling in 2018. You would have to look at a British dictionary published prior to British-American military interactions in WW2 to see if it was an acceptable spelling at that time.
 * On the topic of which term to use in the article, I note that all of the ships were built and destroyed (or left the Royal Navy) prior to the 1950s. Therefore the use of pennant numbers on the article with a note that these were also called pendant numbers is incorrect. A more accurate treament is to refer to them on the article as pendant numbers with a note that the Royal Navy later adopted the term pennant number in the 1950s.
 * The question on ease of understanding for readers is a red herring. Accuracy supported by sources should always trump an editor's perception of what would be easier to understand. There would be an argument to consider the later term if the article content straddled the change in terminology but that isn't the case here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points raised. I accept pendant is appropriate in this article. If pendant should be used generally is something which should be raised at WP:SHIPS as it would affect a very large number of articles and a greater consensus would be needed than is likely to be achieved on my talk page Lyndaship (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Lyndaship. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ALyndaship granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

List of COs of Nevada - deletion discussion
Hi, I just noticed the change you made to your !vote comment, that you would prefer to keep the separate list/article now that more of the officers listed have been determined as notable. I had just recently posted in a reply to Icewhiz that I would be adding (or at least willing to add) the additional notable officers to the main ship article (in the appropriate chronological places in the "hitory" section). Before I do that, I just wanted to check with you; would you be opposed to that? And if so, is it based on the number of officers? (There are now possibly 19 notable COs). I had just reviewed USS Washington (BB-56), and throughout that article there are ≈15 ship or division COs noted. I believe it could have been more if not for the fact that R/VADM Willis Lee made her his flagship for almost the entire Pacific War; he alone is noted ≈17 times. I would like to add the notable COs to main Nevafa article and proceed with the deletion. I dont want to see other "List of" articles like this pop up, only to be abandoned and left for us to deal with. But, I also respect your opinion (we seem to agree on many things) and will hold off until I hear from you. Cheers - wolf  14:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Like you I am not a supporter of lists of CO's in ship articles and as I think you know I am very dubious of the merits of adding names of individuals to ship articles unless their service on that ship was notable in its own right (and I don't think the mere fact that they commanded it is notable). Looking at the evidence icewhiz produced that 19 (at least) of the 26 CO's of Nevada are deemed notable and aware that all 11 on the last HMS Ark Royal have made Admiral and that the consensus is to include them in the text (which I am against - less so than Lists) I came to the conclusion that if we have these List of CO's of Foo as separate articles (for ships which have large numbers of notable CO's) that is support for neither having lists of CO's in articles or cluttering up the text with what are mentions of individuals which are of no real significance to the history of the ship Lyndaship (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * should have pinged you just in case. As to your question, as it is the current consensus to add notable CO's to the text of articles I have no objections to you doing so Lyndaship (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll hold off. If this separate list/article is to be kept, then there is no point in adding all the notable COs to the main article, just because they are notable. If the list is deleted, I'll start adding them, as that is the latest consensus. If the outcome is to merge however, I will still add them to the prose to try and negate the need for an in-article list.


 * If this list/article is kept, I just don't want it to lead to other ones like this, an abysmal, bare-bones page that sat neglected for 10 years. Or have it encourage others to create "articles" like List of Commanding Officers of USS Little Rock (LCS-9), with all two of her COs (CDRs btw) listed. Anyway, we'll see how it plays out... Thanks again. Cheers - wolf  17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah you see I think this sort of thing is better in a bare bones list which no one reads cos no one is really interested in rather than clogging up what is important to me - the ship article. I'm not advocating we should have this sort of list when only a few CO's are notable (they can be mentioned in text) but when there's say more than three. Lyndaship (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I second your point. I would also like to say something about including even non-notable (whatever that means) commanders names in ship articles. Whendoing historical or genealogical research distinctive names, whether of vessels or commanders, are the most useful threads for pulling on to find linkages. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Default sorts on warships
Hi Lyndaship: thanks for cleaning that up. I will try to remember to be more careful in the future. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I noticed some of them were from your early creations and was going to mention it to you later. Thanks for creating articles, not normally my field of interest but quite enjoying reading a few Lyndaship (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Roger that. You throw the line into the water and tug a little and sometimes you catch a good story, to mix metaphors. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS Dartmouth
Re: HMS Dartmouth. Disappointing but I understand. Can I add new text a bit at a time? It's a lot of work for it to be taken down again. The main image and references were OK? 21ppy (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will reply on your talk page tomorrow. It's best to conduct a conversation just on one talk page to keep everything together Lyndaship (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to make your work faster
Hi, Thanks for your contributions. I recently saw you making edits like this manually, Just wanted to let you know, you can do such non controversial edits must faster if you use, Autowikibrowser or WP:JWB. Please give JWB a try if you have not already done so. it will make your job faster and will save you some time which you can use elsewhere.

here are the steps. (You will need to request for AWB at WP:PERM, but you are qualified, so you dont need to worry, just request)
 * 1) Goto INS KHUKRI page, click on what links here on the left column.
 * 2) Extend the list to 500 if needed so that all the links are in one page.
 * 3) . Copy the full list.
 * 4) . paste on notepad, copy and replace the character " (links | edit)" with " | "
 * 5) . Copy the list on JWB/or AWB window.
 * 6) . Start making the edits at jet speed. :D Dont worry, you will still get a chance to review and skip if you so desire.

Good luck. Feel Free to ask Question if you need further help. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful suggestion. I do use AWB when it is useful (see a few days back when I was dabbing following a move). Sadly on these Indian ships its not going to work as part of the task is identifying which ship has been incorrectly linked to the ship index page Lyndaship (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, glad to know that you are well aware. cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi, would you mind talking a look a this bio? I'm curious as to why it's a bio, especially when taking this guideline and the problems with the page into account. Just looking for your opinion. Thanks - wolf  02:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't see any reason for this article to be included in WP under any criteria. It's definitely a vanity piece by a SPA COI editor. However I see that when it was nominated for deletion before the vote was keep Lyndaship (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. Thanks for the reply. Cheers - wolf  08:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, if you're following wt:ships and saw the recent comments by me and PM67 (under "wrap up?"), it seems it's time to post a final proposal for consensus. I believe the two proposals I posted earlier had good support, but in subsequent comments (and there were quite a few), it seems they have been blended into a single proposal with some changes made during some back-and-forth with you and PM67. He mentioned your revisions, so if you could help me, or allow me to help you, it would be great if we could put together a proposed guideline for shipmos, post it, get a straw poll going, determine support and finally put all this to rest. (And hopefully have some shortcuts like "shipsnotcrew" and "prosenotlists" to use, along with any you'd like to suggest. Got any?). Anyway... let me know. Cheers - wolf  05:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. It seems so hard to get anything sorted as any discussion always goes off at a tangent. I'm happy with my last proposal, "Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many notable individuals (including Commanding officers) serving on her during her active lifespan, as a general principle only those who captained a ship during during major events in the life of the ship, or persons who are independently notable should be considered for mention in a ship article. It is strongly recommended that this should be done as part of the chronological narrative of the ship's career rather than in a separate section. Notable persons should be linked to their biographical article, or redlinked if none yet exists." To get consensus I am willing to remove the first sentence or modify it to insert primarily. I think its important to only have one catch all proposal rather than two specific ones and I think my wording covers all bases which your two did. I do like your two shortcuts. Quite happy to debate further before returning to the ships board with a proposal Lyndaship (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me, including the first sentence. I believe only PM67 had the initial   problem with it, but others spoke up in favour of it. I say post that at wt:ships just as it is and start a straw poll for consensus. I think we can finally get this done ;-) Cheers -  wolf  10:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
Apology I reverted your change to Battle of Britain by mistake (or a senior moment). MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for explanation Lyndaship (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Others in the Buenos_Aires-class_destroyer article?
Do you have enough information to do the other five shits including the ARA San Juan in the Buenos_Aires-class_destroyer articles?Naraht (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Afraid not Lyndaship (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Erm, he meant "ships", right? - wolf 22:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please revert
Please self revert and I will gladly source it. A reminder of WP:BRD and WP:3RR should be unnecessary and I will not be revert warring with you. WCM email 17:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted my edit on RFA Sir Tristram (L3505) so that you can add your source. Will you also add the names of all those who died on Sir Galahad? If not why not? Although there has been much debate over the years if WP:NOTMEMORIAL solely applies to subjects of articles or to content too I think having a section named Roll of Honour certainly suggests that this is a memorial and goes against Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. I will raise this at WP:SHIPS where there has been considerable previous concern expressed about non notable individuals been mentioned in articles, we can have the discussion there or at the article talk page as you prefer Lyndaship (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started a talk page discussion but it seems that you and your friend are going to tag team to remove it anyway. Is that what is going to happen at WP:SHIPS too?  Yes I would do the same for Sir Galahad and other ship articles but it concerns me that two editors seems to be ganging up to get their way.   WCM email 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will comment at the article but I completely refute your suggestion that I am "ganging up" with another editor to ensure that this inappropriate section is removed. I restored the disputed content to enable everyone to see what I wanted removed and was surprised to see that another editor had removed it again. WP:AGF Lyndaship (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Given your apparent collaboration it seems a reasonable conclusion, particularly when it was removed straight away. WCM email 08:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we agree on non notable names but so does every other regular editor at WP:SHIPS. I watch his talk page and he I guess watches mine resulting in him spotting your post. I can't prove a negative but I can assure you that I had no prior knowledge that he was going to revert my revert. Reasonable assumption, yes but not the case so again WP:AGF Lyndaship (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK no worries, I'll continue on the talk page. WCM email 10:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, may I thank for your patience in explaining the reason for your edit. I apologise if you were caught in the fallout from another editor raising my hackles. WCM email 14:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure to engage with you Lyndaship (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wild Beast class
Hello Lyndaship. Your move of Wild Beast-class destroyer (1912) to Aetos-class destroyer and associated category and template with the justification "Greek name" is unfortunately incorrect; the ships were known in Greek as the "wild beasts" (Θηρία) on account of their names, just as their namesake Cannon-class destroyers a few decades later. You can see this in the Hellenic Navy's own webpage on its old ships: Αντιτορπιλικά τύπου Θηρία (1912-1946). Please revert your moves. Constantine  ✍  16:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * mmm when this was initially put to me as an error on Wiikipedia I thought my sources on Greek ships are rather sparse so who can I check with and I thought of you. However on looking in the two volumes of Conways and the Couhat book all 3 refer to them as the Aetos class and none call them Wild beast class. We therefore have the use established in English RS which I think would trump the Greek Navy page ( although that would be justification for saying sometimes referred to as the Wild Beast class). However translating the Greek page you give into English it comes up as the Heros class and not Wild Beast class. I'll hold off for the moment continuing with the move to see if you can produce another RS but currently I still think Aetos is the correct name for the English wiki Lyndaship (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, on the name, I wouldn't trust Google Translate if I were you, it is rather useless for Greek :). English sources may use the Aetos name, as they habitually name classes after the lead ship; in Greek sources, they are *always* called the "Wild Beasts". Unfortunately printed Greek sources are rather rare to find online (GBooks etc), and come to it the HN page is sufficient evidence in and of itself as it doesn't really get any more official. I have no problem with it staying at "Aetos-class" if that is what the English sources favour, but at least both names should be mentioned equally in the article. Constantine  ✍  16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed Google translate cannot always be trusted. I'm still a bit worried that the use of Wild beast class for these destroyers is not supported by any source. Googling shows lots of hits but every one appears to be copied from Wiki, there are other mentions for the Cannon class being known as Wild Beasts. Also GR wiki only mentions on two of the articles that they were known as beasts (not Wild beasts). Conversely google for Aetos class brings up several sources which are usually accepted here. I think I come down to I have no problem if you want to add also known as Wild beast class in the articles but I don't feel I should as I have no convincing source (I can't translate the official source you gave to support it) to justify that usage. Is that fair enough? Lyndaship (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the thing to do is to transliterate the Wild Beast name since it was the official name and use that for the article title with a parenthetical statement in the first line of the article that they were often called the Aetos class in English-language sources like I did with the Type 39 torpedo boat article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My preference is always for the name used by the actual country that employed a group of ships, but I have no problem one way or the other to call them Aetos or the Theria/Thiria (transliterated Θηρία) class, as long as it is made clear what is what. Constantine  ✍  10:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I too prefer to use the native name rather than something which other languages have decided is appropriate. My problem here is that all the sources I have looked at use the Aetos name and none Wild Beast. Google translate doesn't seem to be able to translate Greek to English effectively - I've spent a fair bit of time this morning using it both ways on Αντιτορπιλικά τύπου Θηρία, Αγρίμι, θεριό, Άγιος καταστροφέας του θηρίου and Wild Beast class etc to try and find a source which supports a transliteration. I know you are willing to accept the article title as Aetos class as that is supported by RS sources but if I could find a source I would prefer it to be Theria/Thiria class. Currently I think I will have to leave it as Aetos and only mention in the prose that they were known in Greece as the Theria/Thiria class although I don't have a source for that 11:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what the problem is with accepting the Greek navy's own webpage as a conclusive reference; this is as direct and credible a reference as you can have, by the ships' own user. The inability of Google to properly translate this is not a criterion for anything. And if it produced anything like "Άγιος καταστροφέας του θηρίου" ("The holy destroyer of the beast") in the process, then it is even more garbage than I gave it credit for... Constantine  ✍  15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer Theria or Thiria as the transliteration? Lyndaship (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For modern Greek names we usually go by phonetic transliterations, so Thiria for consistency. Constantine  ✍  15:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic
I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Cruise ship articles
In the last couple of weeks or so, you have been removing a lot of content from articles about individual cruise ships. I gather that you consider that information about onboard facilities, and external links to reviews of cruise ships, are not appropriate content for such articles. I disagree.

A cruise ship is not primarily a form of transport, but a place where people engage in leisure activity. Information about onboard accommodation and entertainment facilities, etc, is therefore just as essential to an article about an individual cruise ship as information about armament, etc, is to an article about a warship. Such information is also routinely included in print media literature (eg in shipping magazines such as Ships Monthly) about individual cruise ships.

If, eg the Wikipedia article HMS Hood rightly includes paragraph after paragraph about armament, fire control, armour protection, aircraft, etc (as it does) on board that vessel, so too is it appropriate for an article about an individual cruise ship to have detailed information about that ship's accommodation, restaurants and onboard entertainment facilities, etc. I have no difficulty with such information being removed if it is not properly sourced or is not npov. But please stop removing such information simply for the sake of it.

As for reviews published in well known news outlets such as USA Today, the London Daily Telegraph and The Australian, etc, external links to such reviews are appropriate for articles about cruise ships. They are equivalent to external links to IMDB, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, etc, from articles about movies. Again, please stop removing this material. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I was wondering when someone would question my removals. I have no objection to encyclopedic information such as number of decks or important facilities being mentioned in the prose. I do not think the names of the bars or restaurants, where you can eat what food, when they are open, where you have to pay an extra fee, how much the internet access fee is, whats located on which deck, how big the televisions are and other trivia should be mentioned either in a list or in prose. I can accept in my enthusiasm to get rid of all this marketing type information I should have on occasion added the cited important bits to the prose and will be more careful in future.


 * As to reviews I strongly disagree. Even if a review is published by a RS it is not truly independent as the writer would have been provided with a free cruise in the expectation that they would provide a favourable review. Have you ever seen a negative one? If you google any current cruise ship you will turn up many reviews, why should we choose any particular ones to list as an external link? If the review says something worth mentioning in the article it should be cited. I shall continue to remove them. Lyndaship (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Seahorse (98S), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blyth ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/HMS_Seahorse_%2898S%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/HMS_Seahorse_%2898S%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)