User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 14

Parentheses
You might be interested to see the new comments at: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests Lightmouse 14:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up! It's good to know it's going to be incorporated. TomTheHand 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User Jwillbur
Hi there Tom. I notice that User:Jwillbur has been making a lot of changes to ship cats lately, and I'm not persuaded he knows what he's doing. For example, he's been removing all the submarine class articles from Category:Submarines of the United States and putting them in Category:United States Navy submarines. IMO these articles should be going into both categories, since they are in different master cats, not one or the other.

I've had a look through some of his diffs and left a couple of messages for him, but you might like to have a look youself. Regards, Gatoclass 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hood
Yes, you're right, of course.... silly me! i'm sure I would have picked my mistake up when referencing but thanks all the same! The Land 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Navy categories
The BOLD! but ultimately misguided category changes by look like they are going to take a lot of work to sort out, especially since all the ships by navy and ships by country sub-categories appear to have been cross-connected at every level in the category tree. Unless you have a clever suggestion for an easier way to do it, I think I will just start at the bottom ( and ) and rebuild the complete category structure from the ground up. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't have any good way to go at it :-/ I think the Austria-Hungary articles were undercategorized in the first place, so it could definitely use some TLC. TomTheHand 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up
Hi. You participated in Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. -- A. B. (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing era categories from ship articles
The only ship articles from which I removed era categories where on those in which the entire class fell within the period and therefore could be neatly placed in a sub-category, thus none of the articles I changed are actually affected by the reason you give for placing the era categories on individual ship articles. By moving these categories, the ship articles themselves are made tidier and more importantly the overstuffed cats become far less unwieldy. It also neatly sidesteps the ridiculous situation of Wikipedia having seperate Category:Royal Navy battleships and Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom on every battleship page despite the fact that the contents are exactly the same. Finally, I am actually not convinced that there is a need for era categories for battleships (with the possible exception of WW1, but even then subdividing by class would make things neater). What value is there in knowing that XX battleship was built duing the life of Queen Victoria and XX battleship wasn't? A properly formatted timeline (Which I am currently if slowly working on) would do the job much better.--Jackyd101 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By moving era categories for some ships from the articles to the classes, and not moving others, the Category:Ships by era structure becomes less useful: there's no consistent way of finding what you're looking for, because it may be in a class subcat or it may be in the era cat itself. I'm not complaining about moving Category:Royal Navy battleships and Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom to the class categories: that was great and needed to be done.
 * I don't disagree with you about the Victorian era thing, and I've tried to delete Victorian-era categories for ships from countries other than the UK before, but I wasn't successful in doing so and haven't attempted to reorganize things in any other way. I agree that a properly formatted timeline would be great, but please discuss it on WP:SHIPS or WP:MARITIME before making sweeping changes.  If hundreds of articles are categorized in a particular way, there's probably a reason for it. TomTheHand 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair point, and on reflection I do think I got carried away with the removal of the WW1 cats. I'm mainly looking at revamping the List of Royal Navy . . . articles, to include more information in a tider and more useful format rather than make huge chages to the cat structures (which as I have discovered elsewhere, can come crashing down like a house of cards if you fiddle too much). I was just trying to tidy things up a little.--Jackyd101 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! At one time WP:SHIPS put country cats (like Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom) on every ship article, in order to provide a comprehensive list of all the ships of a country, but... that's what lists are for!  You'll run into many ship articles that still have country and navy cats, but they should be removed and stuck on the class cat instead. TomTheHand 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Something new?
I saw the formatting changes that you've done to ship names in Bogue class escort carrier. What's it about? Folks at 137 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, all the categorization discussion has gotten me to feed a gigantic list of articles into AWB and categorize them as necessary. I also perform some automatic formatting stuff whenever I touch an article, and that's what you've noticed on Bogue class escort carrier.  It's USS, which is a template that  cooked up to make it easier to read and write ship names while editing.
 * Instead of typing this:
 * USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
 * You can type this:
 * USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
 * and the result will be the same: USS Enterprise (CVN-65). There are different options for formatting described at Template:USS/doc.  There's another one, HMS, that works exactly the same but for RN vessels.  If you'd prefer that I stop making these automatic conversions, let me know and we can talk about it. TomTheHand 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no problems with the conversions - just curious. Is there a central reference point for these useful templates, including the "USN flag" one (and any others)? Speaking of the USN flag, I've been replacing USN jacks (as per consensus), manually, when I see them - is there an automated method? I have no experience with bots, and what does AWB stand for. Y'see, even at my age, there's lessons to learn. Folks at 137 22:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really know of a good central reference point for our templates. Category:WikiProject Ships templates is supposed to contain all of them, but it's missing some, I imagine: I just added USN flag to it.  WP:SHIPS would really benefit from a reference page.
 * AWB is short for AutoWikiBrowser, a program you can read about here. Basically, you can get it to generate a list of articles for you, and it will give them to you one at a time.  You work on it, click "save", and it gives you the next one.  It's good for keeping track of where you are.
 * It's also able to make automatic changes to articles. It has some typo-fixing features built-in, and you can write regular expressions that it will automatically apply to articles.  I can't really give you a quick-and-easy rundown of regular expressions, as it's something I picked up working as a software developer.  If you decide to use AWB, I can provide you with some of the regexes that I use, and if there's a pretty simple find-and-replace operation that you want to be able to perform on every article, I may be able to write a regex for you.
 * I don't have an automatic way of applying the USN flag template, and I think it'd be difficult to develop one because of the year component: you have to look through the infobox or article and decide when the ship finally left service. However, AWB is pretty helpful in applying the template nevertheless, because you can get it to generate a list of articles that use (for example) Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.svg and then go through them one by one fixing their flags. TomTheHand 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Page moves
Last time I moved a page, people moaned about leaving obsolete redirects, I had misunderstood 'double redirect' to be a link -> redirect -> Page as well as Redirect -> Redirect. As you will notice, I realised this as I was doing the redirects, I simply decided it was even more of a waste of time to go back and revert my edits to the non-redirect pages that were heading to redirects to Navy of the Argentine Republic. Narson (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

UK escort carriers
I notice that unlike the US, the UK doesn't have a subcat for WWII escort carriers, ie all their carriers are currently going into "World War II escort aircraft carriers of the United Kingodom". I don't see any reason why the UK shouldn't also have a subcat for escort carriers, do you? Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom is really large enough to make the split necessary. The US only has an escort carrier subcat for WWII and for the overall US carriers cat, because those cats would be pretty big otherwise, but categories like Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of the United States and Category:Korean War aircraft carriers of the United States aren't separated because they've got well under 100 members.  I have no problem with you making the split if you want. TomTheHand (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship
Your welcome. I like to help out here where I can to dispel the myth that all anons are vandals :) Regarding the long lance torpedo numbers: I did not see a cite for the information, but I assumed that TomStar got the info from the same place as the other cites referenced in the section, and on the page in question the number they give is 891 pounds. The only way I could get 891 pounds to show was to change the kg input to 404. It seems odd to me that the numbers should disagree so much, is there any way to correct them so they read right? 76.211.107.97 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article on the Long Lance says 490 kg. Navweaps.com agrees.  Combinedfleet.com says 1080 lb, which is 490 kg.  military.com says the warhead weighed "a shade over half-a-ton", or a little more than 1000 lb.  I see no online sources which say 891 lb, and have never read that figure offline either.  I don't think the 891 lb/404 kg figure is correct. TomTheHand 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

yo!
hey! finally decide to visit your page. ANOMALY-117 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) what can i do for ya? i need work on this cite.ANOMALY-117 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) post a messeage on my talk page because the note was a little confuseing. ANOMALY-117 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) I'M ALLWAYS WATCHING... [O][O] <>    ANOMALY-117 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Anomaly. As I said before, on the right side of the WP:SHIPS front page there's a list of things you can do.  Also, a few months ago I wrote up a page listing some tasks that people could help out with.  If you have any specific questions about how to accomplish a task, let me know. TomTheHand 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help
Tom, since you're active at the moment, I thought I'd run a problem by you: Image:CRJ1000.jpg is copyrighted, and not a valid FU image per the Bombardier website. I posted the Bombardier links to the their legal notices on the image file page. I and anotehr user have added CSD tags several times, but user:Downmight10 keeps removing the tags, and reposting the image on the article page. Given that, I'm not sure the correct course of action to take at this point, be it WP:IFD or WP:CV. Thanks for any assistance. - BillCJ 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ANother editor has reported user:Downmight10 to AIV as a sock of User:Roadcrusher. Hopefully this will help. - BillCJ 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I am not very good with fair use stuff. The copyright notice on Bombardier's web site is irrelevant: nothing a company can say removes the right of fair use.  All that matters is if the image meets the non-free content criteria.  Since the CRJ1000 is still in development, there is no way to replace the image with a free alternative.  However, as Kelvinc said, the Bombardier CRJ700 article has many pictures of related models, and the CRJ1000 isn't drastically different.
 * Here's what I recommend: establish consensus at the article talk page about whether or not the image belongs there. If consensus is that it doesn't, it should be removed and slapped with an orphaned fair use tag, which will cause it to be deleted a few days later.  If someone continues to add it against consensus, they should be warned against violating the 3RR rule, and then blocked if they continue to edit war.
 * Please don't let the copyright notice on their web site affect your opinion, though. Again, they cannot take away the right of fair use.  What matters is if it's so important that the new model be illustrated that it justifies having non-free content. TomTheHand 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the response. I've sen other admins remove FU images because of similar copyright restrictions, so I wasn't clear on how it worked. But as you asaid, the differneces aren't that great with the new model. I'll ask on the articel talk page for a consensus on it. - BillCJ 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is great hostility to fair use images on Wikipedia. I understand why, so I guess fair use images should only be used when it's important.  In this case it's probably not important.  However, if someone deleted a fair use image solely because of a copyright message on someone's web site, that wasn't right. TomTheHand 03:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ship articles, flag
Thanks for the heads up. Was not aware of that. I had been putting the first flag, but will switch to putting the final one from now on. — Bellhalla 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Metric and English units
I try to create consistent style. First three Japanese warship articles I saw listed English measurements first followed by metric in parentheses. Probably done by Americans. But I follow their style. All articles about similar subjects should be consistent style. Do you agree? Shibumi2 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but articles about ships should use the builders' units first, followed by the converted units. Ships engineered with the metric system should have metric as their primary units, with English conversions following. TomTheHand (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to expand on that thought by saying that consistently specifying the builders' units is more important than consistently using the same units throughout the article. For example, Yamato's guns should be specified as 46 cm, but when the article compares them to the Iowa class, the Iowas' armament should be specified as 16 in guns. TomTheHand (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ship template confusion
I'm sure this has been discussed; but I've been unable to find it in the multitude of archived talk pages. For someone relatively new to the ship articles on Wikipedia, could you help clarify information on the multiple ship infobox templates?

I was under the impression from WP:SHIP that the format outlined at Template:Infobox Ship Example should be the standard used for all ships. But, I notice that none of the others I've seen have been deprecated, such as Template:Infobox Ship, Template:Infobox Ferry, and Template:WAFerry.

I'm just looking for a little background to understand before I wade into something unknowingly ... is there some debate on which to use that I've missed? Is there objection to merger that is still ongoing? Or are the templates just used in so many places that it hasn't been possible to merge them as yet? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Template:Infobox Ship Example was developed through consensus and intended to be used for all ships, but there's been no real effort to replace existing infoboxes. I believe people still use Template:Infobox Ship, because it's simple, looks almost exactly like the new multi-template box (because the multi-template box is based on it), and is on thousands of ship articles already.  No other box is really used by more than a few dozen articles.  I don't think anyone would object to replacing all existing uses of old infoboxes, but it's a hefty task.  I especially don't see Infobox Ship going anywhere any time soon.  There are hundreds of articles with no infobox whatsoever, and thousands which don't use a templated infobox. TomTheHand (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand which one should be used per consensus. My concern is that because none of the other templates are marked as "Deprecated", "Replaced", or "Superseded", the other templates continue to be maintained and propagated to additional articles.  My initial question here was because there's no mention on the other templates indicating that an alternate template should be used going forward.  Because of this, my concern is that if I begin replacing some of those templates with the one at Template:Infobox Ship Example, I may inadvertantly trigger renewed debate.  I do not want to get in the middle of such a debate, so I'll avoid replacing those templates for now.  Perhaps this thread should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships - feel free to move it if you feel it should be over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, after you posted this I started a thread at WP:SHIPS to discuss deprecating and deleting old templates. I think we'll probably work on them one at a time, removing all uses and then putting them up for deletion. TomTheHand (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)