Tfdavisatsnetnet

Welcome!

Hello, Tfdavisatsnetnet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Skipjack-class submarine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Rather than add the SCB info to the lead of the articles, it's probably better to place it in the Design or Construction section of the articles. BilCat (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Sounds good, but I wanted to keep the edit to a minimum. I didn't see an easy way to add it to that section as currently written. PS Wait, it IS in the Design section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• • • I was referring to the addition to the USS Enterprise article. Also, you need to go back and add the sources to the other articles you've added the SCB info to. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button   located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - wolf 21:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@TheWolfchild: Yes, I know to do that. If I fail it's because I was distracted. BTW, I hope this reply works, I find a lot of Wikipedia to be daunting. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, given your interests, you may want to follow the WT:SHIPS & WT:MILHIST project talk pages. Just add them to your watchlist. You might also find things of interest on the project pages themselves, (as opposed to the associates talk pages). Anyway, give them a look.

Also, I just noticed your post from above. No, the "ping" didn't work that time, but like everything here, it takes a little time to catch on. Basically {{Yo|username}} is the template you wanted to use there. One other thing, you must add your signature at the same time you use the ping template, it won't work unless they are both on the page at the same time when you hit save (or "publish changes" as its called now). Good luck - wolf 23:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, just added the WT:SHIPS & WT:MILHIST project talk pages to my watchlist (been busy with family stuff). I'm interested to see what happens over the nest few days. Thank you for your kindness. @Thewolfchild: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help. (& the ping worked :)
It's a pretty group of people on the two projects, you'll see many of the same names at both. They're a good resource, you can see ongoing discussions about subjects and upcoming changes, both of which you can contribute to, and there's almost always answers for any questions you may have. Cheers - wolf 05:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just an 'fyi'; when looking to start a discussion that involves more than one WikiProject (such as "MOS: Inappropriate use of boldface", at WT:SHIPS & WT:MILHIST), you should select one page to host the discussion then post notifications at the other(s). (You will find that ships and milhist often intersect on articles and issues.) But even with any other wikiprojects, or individual editors you may want or need to involve, if you repost the comment on every page, you can create multiple, parallel discussions. Instead, limit to one and notify on others. For example, use a section header like: "Notification", and for the comment add something basic like:
"Seeking comments on the issue of ______. Please see (link) eg:WikiProject:SHIPS#discussion."

If you have any questions, just let me know. - wolf 19:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just a question; when adding content, (with a summary states; "citations forthcoming"), it's a good idea to add the sources immediately after, or very shortly after. When do you anticipate adding them? (meanwhile, it could be tagged {{cn}}, or someone could just revert your edits. I won't, but I'm just sayin'... ) - wolf 06:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I was too tired to continue for the day, and I was afraid that my old sick computer would lose the text I had been working on (a perpetual concern). I think within 24 hours would be a good rule. I did resolve a long standing 'citation needed' just before making the change in question, so I am trying to add proper citations.

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've started to add the citations. I do want to verify them, and the French sources need to be translated, the one that is a PDF is going to take me awhile. Should be later today. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done! I also added a citation on the sinking of the Belgano, which had long been missing.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

In response to your edit summaries: that other articles are wrong is not a good justification to make additional articles wrong. And if I've taken the time to fix these articles, you shouldn't break them again. Furthermore, I have no obligation to fix all of the articles that are wrong simply because you prefer consistency. You are of course free to fix them yourself. As for "[leaving] CLAA-120 as boldface", yes, because the article title is almost always in bold text at the first use in the beginning of the article. You've been editing here for more than a decade; does this really need to be explained to you? Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, but I was not referring to the article title (I just added CLAA-120 to that today or yesterday). I was referring to the 'Construction and career' section entry. And yes, I am to the point where I really need to have 'assume good faith' explained to me, since so many contributors don't. The worst I ever saw was a fellow who spent pages of his personal talk page explaining why he wasn't mean and contentious when it was obvious he was. To my mind, since the MoS explicitly allows exceptions, a widely used and long standing 'wrong' use of boldface or other formatting is not really wrong: we do need to assume the good faith of our predecessors.

I am going to make this a matter of discussion on the WT:Ships page. If the consensus is to remove the boldface from USN ship reclassifications I will do all of them, just as I did with the boldface on the List of cruiser of the USN article.

ThanksTfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Parsecboy:

That would be a waste of time; whatever WP:LOCALCONSENSUS emerges at WT:SHIPS would not override the MoS, which represents a far wider and longer-standing consensus. The MoS explicitly instructs editors to "avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text", which is what you are trying to do. Exceptions to the MoS need to be justified, and "we've always done it this way" is rather dim logic.

Ah, yes, all I had seen was you adding it to the last section. Are we happy? Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Exercise Vostok, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should it be re-written as a List article? After I created it I noticed that the article I cloned it from - List of Zapad Exercises - is a list article, but I mistakenly failed to preserve that feature. The only other difference between the two is that the Zapad list has 3 more wlinks than does the Vostok article.

Frankly, if the Vostok article is not suitable even as a list article then I don't see why the Zapad article should be.

Tell me, should I make it into a list article? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BoleynTfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a difficult one, thanks for your messages. For a list article, it is still an article, and your sources should be clear, even when there is limited information. The other one is very similar - but we have hundreds of thousands of unreferenced articles, and try not to add to that number. Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Or should it be a disambiguation article? Correct me if I am wrong, but they don't generally have references, do they? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Boleyn Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for adding links to US ships named after US cities. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Have to tell you I have had 1 reversion in all of the city articles and none of the state articles so far: "Undid good faith edit by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk); not a close relationship to article topic". I have to say, when I started this I was curious as to how much objection I would get. My main motive was, of course, the readers who say to themselves "Hey, I didn't know my city had these ships named after it, let me see what this is about", which is an expansion of a topic, not a close narrowing. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I only checked the dablink added to Albany, New York, and most of the ships listed were indeed named after the city. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Tf, I wanted to ask you about some articles because I know that you have put a lot of work into them: I was looking at the article Auxiliary floating drydock, and noted lists of ships the on the page, all denoted as "USS", or Commissioned ships. I was also looking at an article on Landing ship medium and found basically the same thing. My question is, were all these ships actually commissioned? (From there it's a quick step to pages such as List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy and List of United States Navy amphibious warfare ships (more ships, same question).

I'm not looking to dump any kind of huge fixit project on your lap, (if a problem even exists that is), as I said, I know you worked a lot on these pages, and I was hoping that, if anything, you would have some info regarding this issue (eg: either "yes, they were all commissioned, every single one", or "no, some of these ships were actually not commissioned, and some of these pages need some updating".) Anyway, if you have any info that would be of help here, it would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 03:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would not mind such a commission (i.e., 'dump') from you. I must admit, I have no idea what the definitive answer is to your question. Based on the sources I have read, I strongly suspect that up through WW2 any vessel which carried any weapons larger than light machine guns, or which had a sufficiently large displacement (i.e., drydocks), was commissioned for purely legal reasons related to command issues. Look at the USS Dewey (YFD-1) article, she was actually christened. So, yes, I strongly suspect that floating dry docks were commissioned. Are the sources I have read 'strong' RS? I don't know, I've seen the controversy over some on the Talk pages. I will take a stab on this issue tomorrow. @Thewolfchild: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of any issues with sourcing right now. As for these ships, perhaps each of us (whenever we have some free time over the few days or so,) could grap some ramdom samplings of ships with "USS" in the name, and an article, and see if there were any actually comissioned. Then we can meet back here, compare notes, and go from there. Sound ok to you? - wolf 04:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've already seen USS in many Navsource and NVR articles regarding small ships, even barges. I've only not seen the prefix with launches and LCVPs.

I decided to look for commissioning of PT boats, since the WP article on them is silent on this matter. The web site Historic Naval Ships Visitors Guide - PT-615 states that PT-615 was launched on 18 July 1945 and commissioned on 17 Sep 1945. If this is an RS then I conclude that PT boats would have carried the USS prefix.

Looking at the WP article Ship commissioning we can see that it covers 1) ceremony and 2) ship trials and acceptance. There is nothing about a ship's commission as a legal status. I took a quick look last night at an online version of the US Code to see if I could find anything - I would think that ultimately defines a ship's commission - but nada so far, and in any case the current Code might not reflect WW2-era law. The only other thing I found was a Tufts Law school article on ship sovereignty (the US extends its sovereignty to all USS, USNS, USCGS, and civilian vessels chartered by the military). I'm thinking of contacting the US Naval Institute - I'm a life member - to see if they could point me to any RS. @Thewolfchild: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I gave up. I contacted the US Naval Institute and the sources that they sent me are exactly the same that are already referenced in Wikipedia. I'd bet they simply looked it up here. The only alternative would be to actually visit nearby research libraries and see what they have on their shelves. ٪

@Thewolfchild: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Geez... tbh, I had set this aside then forgot about it as I got caught up with other things. So, as for any ship articles that have "USS" as part of the name when they shouldn't (and vice-versa), I don't have anything to report. But, I'm not really worried about it either, WP is always growing and improving, and standing errors eventually get found and fixed. Now, as for the legality behind a commissioned ship, that is damned interesting question. I always believed there was something official behind it, but where that may be codified in law I don't know either. Cheers - wolf 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kammhuber Line into Radar picket. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. Please look over the changes at Radar picket, Talk:Kammhuber Line § Radar picket, Talk:Chain Home § Radar picket, and Talk:Fighter Interception Development Unit RAF § Radar picket. BTW I was unaware of this policy until now.

Thanks, Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The templates are optional; the edit summary is the part that is mandatory. — Diannaa (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bivalve (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bivalent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this was deliberate. I also edited Bivalent to add a link pointing to Bivalve (disambiguation). Both links are Not to be confused with links. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type S4 ship.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit to Fairfield, Connecticut. At "Mill River" you wrote, "Its watershed drains 35 square miles in Fairfield, making it the largest in the town." Your first source calls it the "Mill River Basin", and says its location is in Fairfield County, Connecticut, not the town of Fairfield. Your second source says, "the watershed is relatively large, covering about 35 square miles within Fairfield and four other towns." I did not check the other rivers you added. Please note that "watersheds" do not exist within US cities, however, rivers and creeks that are part of a watershed do flow through cities. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You know, I was just in the process of fixing that mistake re 35 square miles when you reverted it.

Allow me to tell you something: when I see a whopper like that I usually try to tell the perp what they have done and so give them a chance to fix it. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Please note that "watersheds" do not exist within US cities" Then, why do municipal documents that describe watersheds use the word? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Magnolia677: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you are adding variant info to List of United States Air Force aircraft designations (1919–1962). When I rewrote the US aircraft designation lists, I had left that information out as the scope of the lists was aircraft designations rather than aircraft themselves. I also noticed that you added the RAF names to the A-22 and A-23 in this edit, which I also am not sure about as many other aircraft in the list also had RAF names as well as other designations in other countries. Since basic information on the aircraft and variants can be found in the articles they link to, I think it is best to leave such information out to avoid scope. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

But...isn't one point of a list is to provide information to spark an interest to click on the articles they link to, articles that might not be accessed without the additional information? I admit this is a balancing act.

@ZLEA: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I think that the A-22 and A-23 are the two exceptions to avoiding RAF names, since the USAAF had no alternative names. ??

@ZLEA: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The point of a list article isn't necessarily to spark interest in the articles it lists, but to, well, list the articles. I'm not sure the added benefit of including the extra information outweighs the impact on readability, but perhaps that's something to discuss further. You do make a valid point about the A-22 and A-23, but perhaps it should be because the USAAF designations were only for contract purposes rather than the lack of a USAAF nickname, as the scope of the list is US designations, not matching US designations to those used by foreign air forces.

If we do want to include basic information about the aircraft, we should at least be consistent about it. Perhaps restructuring the list to a table format similar to List of undesignated military aircraft of the United States. The problem with this, however, is that the large number of pre-1962 designations would make for very large tables, and readability on mobile devices would likely be negatively impacted. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am 100% in agreement on the negative aspects of tables, IMO they are best used for information that benefits from sorting functionality. Most of the articles with large tables are basically unreadable. BTW, I am also in agreement with you that readability requires that extra text be kept to a minimum; again, it is a balance among objectives.

@ZLEA: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

After doing a little research, it turns out I was wrong about the A-22 and A-23 designations being used for Lend-Lease. Both designations were dropped by time the RAF variants were produced, so I've removed the RAF names from the list. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I just know what would attract me in reading a list.

I have wrestled with the same issues as you have. Over time I have heavily edited List of cruisers of the United States Navy. In one example, I removed the sinking of the USS Phoenix during the Falklands War because it wasn't in US service at the time, a reason similar to what you have used on this page. Someone put it back. I decided it wasn't worth an argument. Such is life.

@ZLEA: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's understandable. One other thing I noticed is that you added that the A-42 and A-43 were the attack variants of the B-42 and F-87, respectively, though technically it's the other way around as both were originally developed as attack aircraft before their intended roles were changed. Perhaps it should read that they are predecessors of the B-42/F-87. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. We can change that.

I do have a large recommendation for an extensive change. I will copy the section into my sandbox, make the change, and get back to you for your inspection.

@ZLEA: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, please look at my sandbox User:Tfdavisatsnetnet/sandbox and tell me what you think. I tried to make the list less visually busy and more specific (everything now reads 'redesignated from' or 'redesignated to').

@ZLEA Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

That looks great! I don't know that I would make any changes to that format. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, changes made. I think that's it for me for now.

One thought: too bad we can't find an RS on the legendary Congressional debate over whether the F4H Phantom II or the F-110 Spectre was the better plane, and how that forced the Pentagon into the unified Tri-service designations. It would make a great intro to the 1962 Tri-service list article!

@ZLEA: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have never heard of such a debate. I imagine the "debate over which was the better plane" part is just an urban legend, though. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just saw your edit. I get what you were thinking, but layout issues aside, the info in that box is already found in the navbox at the foot of the page. But hey, it doesn't hurt to try things out. Cheers - wolf 05:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I like the side infobox, it is much more visual, and the reader doesn't have to click on it see what info is there (unlike the bottom infobox). I thought I'd give it a try. My mistake was editing the section and not the whole article, because the preview didn't give me enough info to make the proper decision. Live and learn. Thanks for the cheers. @Thewolfchild: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Hybrid airship, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

 

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply