This is an archive of past discussions with User:Parsecboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Everything looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks to the article, and got the second Fort Bragg dab; the article looks to be in great shape. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help getting 13th ABN to FA, Parsec, and for all your help with my other articles. Real kind of you. Skinny87 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Getting the round in
Have a beer on me.
Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's any help when you create it, the 1948 one was apparently owned by the British India Steam Navigation Company, and ran from Durban, via Lourenco, Marques, Beira, Mozambique, Dar-es-Salaam, Zanzibar Mombasa, and the Seychelles, to Karachi and Mumbai. (State of South Africa, Da Gama Publishers, 1959) Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. From what I can tell, the BISNC owned the second two Karanjas. I'll be busy for the next couple of days with real-life stuff, but perhaps this weekend I'll have time to start articles on the two ships. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
While I know you are well aware, I just wanted to remind you of WP:3RR seeing as you have already violated it. As the issue appears to have moved to the talk page, I will get out of your way in hopes that no one will be continuing to revert one another until some form of consensus or compromise has been made on the articles talk. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, 3RR is the limit; you have to have reverted 4 times in 24 hours to have violated 3RR. Regardless, I'm done reverting this chap, my objection to his edits has been registered. Parsecboy (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevada
The picture on the main page...did we want that one or the one of her sunk at Pearl Harbor? The latter would be to emphasize the Pearl Harbor connection...I dunno. I just noticed it and I thought the I'd ask you. :) Cheers! —Ed17(Talk / Contribs)02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea; are you referring to the image from Pearl that's in the article? It would be very appropriate, considering the date. I looked through the other images on Commons for the ship during the attack, and there are a number of interesting photos, but none of them really struck me as usable on the main page. Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem on the page move, glad to be of help. The truck accident was a bit of sarcasm :) The only good thing about it was that I was able to control the truck long enough that when it did eventually slide into the ditch and roll over, it was going slow enough that no one was hurt. And, it wasn't too terribly long before I had the truck repaired (still drive it today). Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
List of countries and outlying territories by total area
Thank you for your help on USS Nevada (BB-36) both before, on and after December 7th! Your checking, questioning and question-answering helped a lot in making it one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Cheers! —Ed17(Talk / Contribs)22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help. I'm tossing around the idea of trying to get the SMS Von der Tann (my first more-or-less solo FA) on the main page on May 31 (the 93rd anniversary of the Battle of Jutland, at which the Von der Tann destroyed the Indefatigable). It's a fair bit of time away, but I've never actually nominated an FA for the main page before. How much time before the 31st should I nominate it? A week? Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the source - i.e. the legislation - doesn't use capitals. The actual directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31979L0409:EN:HTML) states: Member States shall classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of these species, taking into account their protection requirements in the geographical sea and land area where this Directive applies.
It's a request for arbitration. There's a link to the discussion on your talk page. You'll want to go there and make a statement assessing your views to the Arbitration Committee, so they can evaluate the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but on my Talk page the RfARb is about Ireland naming. What is the connection with the capital letter issue? Mooretwin (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I was under the apparently false impression the other two editors were involved with that RfArb as well. Perhaps the best route would be for you to formally propose the moves at WP:RM under the "Other proposals" section, for wider input from uninvolved editors. I'd suggest presenting a number of references at the start of any proposed move (similar to this example). If there is a strong consensus to use lower-case as with the official documentation, then the issue will be settled. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have another one, which O Fenian has also been moving: Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be Area of outstanding natural beauty. The legislation which governs this designation does not use capitals:
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_8#pt4 - see section 82: ... the Agency may, for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, by order designate the area for the purposes of this Part as an area of outstanding natural beauty ... In this Part “area of outstanding natural beauty” means an area designated under this section as an area of outstanding natural beauty.Mooretwin (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with renaming it to "invasion", if that's what reliable sources call it. So, I would suggest digging up sources that refer to it as an invasion rather than a conquest. If the sources are on your side, you'll be in a better position to get the move proposal passed. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that there are a number of other articles that use conquest instead of invasion, such as the Norman conquest of England, Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, Roman conquest of Britain, Umayyad conquest of Hispania (just see this search for more. What I'm saying is, try to have more than just "it's consistent with other articles relating to Egypt" when you propose the move, and you'll see more people agreeing with you. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Parsecboy for your reply. I'll try finding sources that call it invasion rather than conquest. But do you happen to you on what basis some articles are called "conquests" while others are called "invasions"? I'm curious about that. Thanks again. --Bomba999 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
In some cases, it's probably just the preference of the editors of the article. I do think the Norman invasion of England is frequently called a conquest in historical works, and the man who led it was given the appellation William the Conqueror. It may be the case that some of the others are often referred to as conquests in reliable sources as well. Although, it would seem to me that while the two words have considerable overlap in terms of meaning, they are not 100% synonyms; invasions can fail or succeed, or even partially so, but conquests are generally total victories for the invading force. That seems like an important distinction to me, but I am by no means an expert. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Bismarck
Ni Nate, the painting actually shows PE firing on Hood, according to the description in Commons. Do you want to remove it, and the page is quite well served with images actually. All the best, bigpad (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I was looking through the category on Commons to see what new images had been uploaded from the Bundesarchiv, and saw that painting. After a cursory glance, I assumed the ship was Bismarck (I guess made the same mistake Holland did ;-) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Swede/Rutabaga
Please define original. Original name requested to be moved from was Swede (root vegetable) to Rutabaga. Please define what is meant as original as an admin unilaterally moved the page before discussions ended.--90.241.209.27 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The page was originally at Rutabaga, for a significant period of time. Two editors moved the page to Swede (root vegetable) after very minimal discussion; the page was moved back for the appropriate discussion to take place. Because there is no consensus, the page should remain at the longstanding, original name, which is Rutabaga. Parsecboy (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Over-hasty move - Burma campaign
You have today moved the existing article, "Japanese capture of Burma" to Japanese conquest of Burma, at the request of User Dapi89 (talk). His stated reason for the move was that the use of the term "capture" was "improper" in this context.
I regret that in my opinion, your move of this article was premature, made with insufficient consultation and on inadequate grounds. The move appears to have been made immediately on the request. Very little discussion was entered into. As the creator of the article, I resent any implication that any contribution I have made to Wikipedia was improper. Further, the objection of User Dapi89 to the term seems specious. The OED defines capture as "take into one’s possession or control by force". It defines conquest as the result of conquering, which isn't much use by itself, but defines conquer as "overcome and take control of by military force". There seems to me to be very little difference between the two; if "capture" is improper, I do not see why "conquer" should be any less objectionable.
While I do not object to the move (my original objections to User Dapi89 were that his changes to the main article Burma Campaign left orphaned links), I do resent implicit criticism of my work without my being informed. HLGallon (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, the issue is simple semantics: we could use capture or conquest, and it's largely a question of taste (unless reliable sources largely refer to the campaign one way over the other). We do, however, have a significant number of "___ conquest of ____" articles on Wikipedia (see this thread on my talk page that lists a number of them), and it's generally better to stick to common naming styles in order to provide more predictable names for readers who might use the search box to find articles. I wouldn't take Dapi89's assertion as criticism of your work, he just prefers one word to the other. I don't want to sound like a dick, but there is the line below the editing window that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." On the other hand, I do understand how aggravating it can be when you've created an article, and someone comes along and edits it in such a way you might not necessarily agree with. I guess that's just how a wiki works. Perhaps the best route would be to raise your concerns with Dapi89 (over what you feel to be implicit criticism of your work) and seek some resolution there. If you would prefer I undo the move, and provide the opportunity for a discussion to take place via the WP:RM process, I'd be happy to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No need to revert the move. I have let off steam and feel much better. If the use of "conquest" is a preferred naming style, then it is better left as it stands. If Dapi89 does not fix the remaining links e.g. in the campaign info. box in the next few days, I will do so. HLGallon (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sometimes we all need to blow off a little steam. A bot should be along within the next day or so to fix and redirects created by the move, so I wouldn't worry about those too much. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There was a request at WP:RM. If a user files a request that appears to be uncontroversial (changing capitals, in this case), the page is usually simply moved without any discussion. I'd ask User:MerriFunn, the editor who filed the request. S/he might have just simply come across the page, which at first glance does appear to be incorrectly capitalized, and attempted to fix it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
MTV has The Ikki Twins and their own website has The Ikki Twins. And try googling "ikki twins". I may have messed an attempt to move the page to the correctly capitalized version (according to the wikipedia's stylebook for these things). MerriFunn (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. The flag image has me stumped, just haven't learned images yet. According to The Explorers Club web page, this image is OK to use but must have the trademark symbol displayed. I just tried to position the TM with text but a poor attempt. Laborynth (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem on moving the page. We don't generally use trademark/copyright/etc. restriction notices in articles. The File:ExplorersFlag.jpg has a valid fair use claim, along with full attribution of the image to the club, and that meets the legal requirements for our use of the flag image. Only in certain cases (i.e., if a photographer/author requires credit be given in the caption to allow use of the image on Wikipedia) do we ever have any non-descriptive text with the image. I hope that helps. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, re your assessment of MV Pelikan as a stub, would you please take a look at WP:ASSESS. I'm disappointed that the article has been assessed as a stub, as it clearly meets higher criteria. I try not to create stubs, and pay attention to WP:CITE. In line with my statements on WT:SHIPS I will not assess any article I've created or substantially edited. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
My main thought in regard to the article is the quantity of the text; the prose itself is only about 2kb. Generally, if an article is 2–3kb or less of prose, I rate it as a stub, regardless of the quality of the citations, whether it has an infobox or not, or whether it has a section header or not. My opinion of a solid Start-class would be at least 4 5kb. Of course, I could be assessing on a faulty interpretation of the quality levels (and if I am, please correct me). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
Start
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
C class
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
B class
# The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
Now, whilst the criteria for stub says that length doesn't necessarily stop an article from being a stub, there is nothing in Start/C/B class that says it has to be a certain length. Basic criteria for Start class is that the article needs to satisfy WP:N, WP:V and WP:BLP (if applicable). For C class, structure is taken into account (infobox, pictures, sections etc). Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The lack of clarity in regard to article length might be something worth bringing up at WP:ASSESS. It might be helpful to establish a general rule of thumb for article length for stub and start-class articles. I have updated the assessments in line with what you have presented here (C-class for ships, and Start for Milhist, since they don't use C). Thanks for pointing me in a better direction. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem; nobody's perfect, and we can all make mistakes or misunderstand things. We'd probably live in a more pleasant world if people would learn to be better able to objectively evaluate their thoughts/actions and modify them when necessary (not that it's at all easy to do so, especially in real life). But that's just my little rant :) Parsecboy (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Mjroots (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Dear Parsecboy, can I refer you, as an administrator, to the above article. An editor keeps on undoing my edits and is not accepting my "neutrality disputed" tag. I claim no special privileges but do not like the claim that I am an amateur editor on Wiki. FWIW, I have a degree in Ancient History (QUB, 1986) and would not have presumed to tidy up the introduction to an article if I knew nothing about the subject)! Thank you, bigpad (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Peiper photo
Hi,
I have a question to ask about the correct procedures when a person changes images in threads. I have long worked on various military articles on Wikipedia. I also supplied many of them with images and assisted with my help. Recently, I have been having a problem with a member talk who is repeatedly changing an image in an article on Joachim Peiper . What shall I do? Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
