User talk:Wwoods/Archive 2006

Project New Hampshire Mountains

Thanks for helping on the Pinkham article - consider joining WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains; you might be interested. Tell your friends about it. -- Sturgeonman 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

malo's RfA

Thank you!

Wwoods, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was pleased to see that you supported me. And while I have thanked Durin for his impressive nomination of me, I would like to thank you for taking the time to introduce me to making templates long ago (back in august :) ). I feel pretty confident had you not taken the time to leave me a message on my talk page that I would never have been able to contribute has much as I have (so far) to Wikipedia. I hope to prove your trust in my abilities to be well founded. Thanks again for your support. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ship table

Thanks for the heads up about Netholic has been getting up to with the template. My answer would be an unqualified, "Continue to use the current template since I have got rid of all the meta templates." Since I have purged all the QIF parts with the new non-server-straining code I see no objection to using this version for the foreseeable future. David Newton 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Francis Scott Key

I note that the FSK has an image of the man, rather than the sub. I was unable to find any images of the actual sub. However, we do not have an image of the man on the sub page for Henry L. Stimson (Image:Henry L. Stimson.jpg), but have one available in the article on the man. What's your feeling on including an image of the man rather than the boat? Avriette 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Hi! I don't mean to intrude, but I noticed you have made some edits to the Cheers article in the past! I've given the article a serious reworking and I hope it can garner your support on it's FAC. Thanks again! Staxringold 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk

Some of those ambiguous links to Norfolk should probably have gone to Naval Station Norfolk. —wwoods 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that generally this would apply to all articles relating to ships? Rob 13:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean all the ship articles relating to the USN that refer to Norfolk unless it is Norfolk UK explicitly? Rob 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Italic collision

No, thats my fault entirely. I was using a semiautomated program to change a bunch of articles from one category to another. It looks for html format tags and converts them to wiki markup (which is usually a good thing, at least from wikipedia's standpoint)...but as we can see in this case it wasn't clever enough in its substitutions. I'll have to check my other changes from this morning and see what other articles I've screwed up. :( --Syrthiss 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rilian/Rillian

Hi. Back in December you moved the article on Rilian, the Narnian character, to Rillian. In current US editions at least, the former spelling is correct. Do you have a source for the -ll- spelling? —wwoods 08:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was mistaken. It ought to be Rilian, and not Rillian. NatusRoma 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Secret

I don't know what the convention is for determining which flag a given ship flies (flew). I have added a small stub for the USS Secret. Could you check the flag? Thanks! Avriette 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with templates for WP:Weapon

User:Fluzwup ('scot') and I are formulating an approach to get ballistics data added to the cartridge pages. I can procure the data, but both of us are pretty green as far as template work goes. You've done good work on the ships, and I was wondering whether you could help us with our endeavor? See [1]. Avriette 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, wwoods, I've got a rough version of what I was looking for. Do you suppose you might be able to debug the few issues I mention? Avriette 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal regarding Ryan G. Anderson.

I don't have a problem with moving the article per your suggestion. However, I suspect that such an effort might require action from a Wikipede with admin rights to make the move... Folajimi^(talk)

Just out of curiosity, what brought you to the stub? Folajimi^(talk)

Template:IN-FedRep popped up on my watchlist ("Reverted edits by Folajimi to last version by Wwoods"), so I went over to see what was happening, like Rikki-Tikki-Tavi. Incidently, if you want to disambiguate Dan Burton, I've no objection but the non-breaking spaces in the template keep the name and party from being split by the end of a line, which (IMO) is a Good Thing.

For naming bio articles, my order of preference is

[GivenName MI(s). FamilyName],
[GivenName MiddleName(s) FamilyName],
[GivenName FamilyName], and last,
[Name (characteristic)]

since I figure the variations on the name are what most people are going to look for and link to. When I do a bio article, mostly from DANFS, I put out redirects at the variations on the name, and often catch some pre-existing incoming links.

—wwoods 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response has me rather baffled. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi? Dan Burton?? DANFS??? Perhaps I am missing some sort of hint here, but the connection to Ryan G. Anderson is anything but clear to me. Care to clarify? Folajimi^(talk)

[<--resetting]

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi—Throwaway literary allusion: 'The motto of all the mongoose family is "Run and find out," and Rikki-tikki was a true mongoose.'
Dan Burton—You had changed a link in Template:IN-FedRep from Dan Burton to Dan Burton (U.S. Congressman).[2] I wondered if that change should stand, so I clicked on through to those pages, and on to your User and Talk pages. "Ryan Anderson" was at the top, and Ryan Anderson (traitor) caught my eye.
DANFS—The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships has articles on almost all US Navy ships, up to ~1968, including biographies of the people ships were named for. Since it's in the public domain, I've found it a handy source of information for Wikipedia.

—wwoods 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification.

Today, I stumbled onto this WP page and was wondering how that really works. Can you reconcile those remarks with the action known as "speedy deletions?" Folajimi^(talk)

US whatever to United States Whatever

They're all being changed because (1) it was what people agreed to do on WP:CFD and (2) it is expansion of acronyms, which apparently fits some style guideline that I can't put my finger on at the moment (outside of being a speedy renaming criteria). I wasn't the one who closed those particular discussions (or participated in them, as an admin who does close discussions on cfd), I'm just one of the folks moving the articles into the new categories. :/ --Syrthiss 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the link now that I had more time... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) says that in "general" abbreviations should be expanded ("World War II" instead of "WW2") and further down, the by-country designation should be "in/of the United States"...so there's policy that is behind the nominations for renaming (as much work as it makes for me and poor Kbdank71). --Syrthiss 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't somebody have a bot that could handle this sort of thing? Gdr recently changed the {{disambig}} tags on a zillion pages. Well, thanks for the response. —wwoods 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AllyUnion's NekoDaemon bot will find {{categoryredirect}} tags and move the articles to the renamed category...but for some of the smaller categories I've just been doing it with AutoWikiBrowser, since the bot appears a little backlogged. --Syrthiss 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CUP

I just created copper units of pressure, so the link can go in the cartridge template. scot 04:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More cartridge template experiments

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fluzwup#Template_experiment and down. Avriette managed to catch me in mid-creation, and apparently thinks not everyone has a 1600x1200 pixel screen. I suppose he might have a point--at work I have TWO 1600x1200 screens :) scot 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Thank you for your work correcting the capitalization of the title and chasing down the links to make them direct and correct. You may be interested to note that I have carved out the new Robert A. Heinlein bibliography article, per the note I placed four days ago in Talk:Robert A. Heinlein. Hu 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you changed "Is" to "is" throughout Wiki for "Harsh Mistress"? That flies in the face of all style manuals I've ever seen. Also of the book itself -- I have the first edition from 40 years ago, and believe me, the title is "Is", not "is".... Hayford Peirce 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Well, that's the way I've usually seen it, or abbreviated MiaHM. —wwoods 03:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Is" because that's the verb in the sentence. Cheers.... RobertAustin 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Pedro Bay

No problem. If you need anything else to be done, I am at your service. --Spot87 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ship naming convention

Pardon me if this is in the wrong area, I use this feature so rarely that I am not completely confident in where to post this. My question is: Who created this naming convention?

In nearly every published source I have reviewed (I will admit that I don't know what DANFS does, but I consider it only a semi-legitimate source anyway) the appropriate formatting for a vessel like the USS Ajax would be to use the 1869 date.

Because the ship was on the Naval books for 7 years before she took that name there is a history for the Manayunk, however thin, and that date is used to distinguish the differences. In the case of the Manhattan, which wore the name Castor for two months in 1869, the convention I've seen would make the appropriate listings as Manhattan (1863) and Castor (1869). After the vessel reverted back to Manhattan in 1869 the original date would apply. For the vessels that bore three different names, likewise, whichever year that vessel took that name is the year that it should have listed.

After reviewing the existing conventions further on the link you provided, every other source I have seen treated "names" that the hull held the same way you treat "ID numbers" that the name held—a separate recognition of each one, with priority being given to the most famous, then the first, in that order.

That is generally the same way I have set my articles up as well. If there is going to be an issue with this I would be willing to go back and alter the pages to Wikipedia's naming conventions. Zurel Darrillian 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into the page history, I see that Stan Shebs added that bit back in May 2003 ([3]). I presume the thinking was that launching is a unique event in a ship's history, unlike naming or commissioning.

DANFS doesn't seem to do anything to disambiguate—"monitor Manayunk was renamed Ajax (q.v.)". The online version simply adds Roman numerals, but that's obviously not considered part of the name of the ship.

At a minimum, please make redirects to catch any incoming links. Feel free to raise the subject on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. By the way, I've ginned up footers for the Amphitrite, Arkansas, Milwaukee, and Miantonomoh classes.

—wwoods 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSC page

Just to let you know, I set up a page for Consolidated Steel Corporation. I've been going through a search to wiki-link other pages that mention Consolidated Steel (mostly Navy ships so far), but if I miss some, look out for red links that could be blue. Zaui 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day influenced Star Gate?

Regarding your recent edit to the Groundhog Day (film) article, it is difficult without a source to be certain that the Star Gate episode was actually inspired by the Groundhog Day movie instead of, say, Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. Do you have a reputable source that says SG1's inspiration was really the Groundhog Day movie? The Rod 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly of interest

User:Avriette/ShipImgQuery and related User:Avriette/Task List. Thoughts? aa v ^ 03:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So updated. Interesting that navsource has photos which are claimed to be USN photos, which danfs doesn't have.

Search Google Images for USS Adirondack (AGC-15) at *.mil navsource.org

for example. If only mediawiki had some way to iterate over data, I could just incoporate the "linked here" data off IIH.png. aa v ^ 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdb

Hi, I don't think the redirect should be protected, because the template on itself is pretty ambiguous and I know it's caused problems before (because people keep trying to use it for film titles as you've seen). If someone ever gets a bot to replace the template on the pages that currently use it with {{imdb name}}, changing it back to a dab page afterwards would probably be good, to prevent the same problems in the future. But before that, it should be kept as a redirect :) - Bobet 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Thanks for your note. I wasn't aware of that problem and will keep an eye on it. Best, --Ian Pitchford 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Liddle (APD-60)

I have been having trouble moving this article to its proper name, USS Liddle (DE-206). Would you please make the move for me. Once it is moved, I will import the DANFS information, so that it is similar to all the other Buckley Class destroyer escorts. Thank you. --Spot87 01:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Spot87 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Baron DeKalb

Would you mind looking at USS Baron DeKalb and fixing its armament plus add a ships box, Thanks - Noles1984 21:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pitching in! Click 1632 talk

FrankB 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Trying to Figure How to Procede

Thanks for your input, you make some good points.

Can you drop me a quick list of the 1632 series articles as you now know it, or confirm the 1632 series article is complete wrt all the spin-offs. I realized last night that I made a rookie mistake when I jumped into this, but I'm still editing the talk at this moment, so check it in a while. I raise the above query as I'm tabbing through the whole evolution of the 1632 (novel) article whilst trying to figure out what to do where and how. Hence I see the ROF shorts list, etc. as things evolved. I want to do the same for any other artys so I don't inadvertantly step on more toes while making up with anyone I've offended.

I also made a belated post (again currently in same mid-edit) just below your initial response to the mysterious 'Anom' with 4 total edits... I obviously wounded someone there, and thoughtlessly exacerbated it with a thoughtless comment on the Talk. Everything seems to be rather overly minimalist. Why?

Apologies for putting foot in mouth as well in talk and action, but that's explained as best I can in the suspended change to talk: 1632 (novel). I'm contemplating reverting and can use assurance I've now got the big picture.

Thanks, much obliged. email would be best ([email protected]), talk for a simple confirm, or post a list to my user page under current 'large edits' heading tab if you don't like email. Thanx much. FrankB 17:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response 2 your msg (I logged in & was told "no SEND address")

(The response per se follows my liberal autobiographical spiel.)

Bruce David Wilner is my actual identity.

Just Announced Yesterday

Thought you'd like to know ASAP...

1634: The Baltic War is now officially scheduled for hardcover publication in May 2007. You may perform the usual back-calculations to figure out webscription, e-arc and snippet availability.

– The Loyal Minions

Snipped from Erics Site. They're months ahead of schedule per Webers 'schedule' on his web site! B'regards FrankB 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments to [email protected]

[1] Caspian IX - You know, I guess you got me. I was thinking of the "immediate" consequence of Prince Caspian after Lion Witch Wardrobe. In actuality (as I'm sure you're aware), it is Dawn Treader that "almost immediately" (actually, three years later) follows Prince Caspian; indeed, PC occurs about 1000 years after LWW. So, it is certanly feasible to opine that there could have been eight or nine Caspians--as well as others--in the period between LWW and PC.

HOWEVER, that being said, your chronology is also far from perfect. You alluded to other rulers (Gale, etc.) as being "between" LWW and PC. As you would recognize if you reviewed The Last Battle, Gale, as but one example, was prehistory dating back far before Jadis and the Hundred Years' Winter. Indeed, I believe Gale dates to the fourth century AA, whereas Jadis reigned in the tenth.

[2] Czar Pavel Petrovich - My bad. I was trying to inject a dose of humor. With certitude, (a) anyone would instantly recognize that I was joking (it was marked "alternate biography"); (b) it takes seconds to delete the "offending" content. I do not need the sandbox. I wanted to express my humorous creative energies. I know, the forum was inappropriate. Actually, it was something of an experiment, viz., how long would it take before anyone noticed. (How many people read the Paul of Russia article?!) I conclude, then, that you are informed by automatic means as to who edited what and when. Then again, there are so many edits going on every day; could there possibly be time for human reviewers to grok ALL of them?!

[3] Crocodile shears (torture device) - I was amused by your comment (I THINK it was yours) about your legs being crossed after reading the addition. LOL!! ROTFLMAO!!!

For the editors

You have GOT to do something about the performance of these servers. I edit a page, adding perhaps a paragraph, and it can take ten seconds for the corrected page to appear. I add a few messages to your discussion page, save the edits, and the browser times out (I have to press Reload THREE times) while pulling up the modified page. This is absolutely f*cking torturously dreadfully disgraceful. I can't believe I condescend to deal with this. It is utterly unacceptable to use 1986 technology to host a 2006 Web site.

Image:Morris.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Morris.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 06:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Collins Articles

re:Talk:Andy Collins, Talk:Andy Collins (radio), Talk: Andy Collins (television) Hey there!

Don't know why this guy (User talk:Macs417) asked me for help... but there it is.
I'm not sure those were the best titles, so if you are, you may want to do a move to what is more normal.
Drop in on Talk: Arsenal of Democracy (See sect: RFC) which, along with other historical matters, has tied me up slowing updates on 1632.
That project's going to be my priority this next week if it kills me! But I'm getting some Wikitime off this weekend first! The yard is going to hell, and spring is here!

I'm going to want some input there on which 'explainations' present better to readers unfamilar with the works, but I can get back with a note on that when I think what I have is several polished variations that work. Then we can go from that, all is now still rough. I've draft changes in mid-update offline for a couple.

Best regards, FrankB 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we haven't touched base for a while. It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! <G>)

Best!

The West Wing list's separated

hello, check it please and read answer: Talk:List of The West Wing episodes. Thanks. Nyikita 19:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks

I have restored ranks if they hade been deleted in a few articles. Because the person/s who created the article/s did put them in there for a reason. Perhaps when they made the article/s the rules were diffrent. Also the guidelines can be changed by anyone at anytime like for example I changed it just today when I looked it up before your post and corrected a word (omitted). It is my personal belief that ranks are a good thing to have but that said if you want to remove ranks in some articles then go ahead but I only urge you to do it if you think they add nothing to the article and if they can be found elsewhere in the article. (Deng 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Marjorie Sterrett Battleship Fund Award

I see you added some Pacific Fleet winners. Do you have special knowledge of this award, did you just pick some up from articles, or ??? (I'm trying to find authoritative info on the award, and it's NOT easy to do.) Also, I'm new to this Wikipedia stuff, and I'm wishing I had put the table in reverse order, with the newer winners at the top. Is there some automated way to do that? Lou Sander 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just googled for variations of Marjorie Sterrett "Pacific Fleet". Surpringly few links. I've flipped the list around; no automated way that I know of--just cut & paste.

—wwoods 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for framing the letter. I was wondering how to do that. BTW, I'm getting a LOT of original historical information about Marjorie and her fund. It's MOST interesting to dig into 90-year-old newspapers. Lou Sander 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship templates

Hi, why did you create Template:Ise class battleship and Template:Fusō class battleship if you're not going to use them in the relevant articles? — Timwi 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stamping out a bunch of templates. Figured I'd do that first; then add them to the articles. Feel free to add them yourself. —wwoods 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-Go

Thanks a lot for the assistance with the article and related entries and look forward to collaboration on more WWII Pacific campaign articles. Cla68 13:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Gato

Thanks for the quick addition to the article. I'm continually amazed by how quickly requests for any type of info are answered here! Lisiate 22:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption and alt text

Image alt text are actually built into the MediaWiki image syntax so far as I am aware. So long as the image is not a thumb then simply adding the text you want as alt text as another parameter alongside the size of the image will do it. David Newton 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case then you need to put in the code such that if there is alt text the resulting template ends up in the correct form. So you need to make sure that the | and the text are inserted in the image markup created by the template. If you look at the film infobox you'll see that they've actually done a similar system to the one you're thinking of doing. Their code is:

{{#if:{{{image|}}} | <tr><th style="font-size: 90%;" align="center" colspan="2">[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}} | {{{image_size|200px}}} | 200px}}]]{{#if:{{{caption|}}} | <br>{{{caption|}}}}}</th></tr>}}

That means that the template first checks whether there is anything in the image variable. If there is then the image markup is created. If then checks to see if there is anything in the image size variable and creates the appropriate code. It finally checks to see if there is anything in the caption variable and creates the appropriate code. In order to do what you're wanting the code would need to be something along the lines of:

{{#if:{{{image|}}} | <tr><th style="font-size: 90%;" align="center" colspan="2">[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}} | {{{image_size|200px}}} | 200px}}| {{ #if: {{{alt text|}}} | {{{alt text}}} }}]]{{#if:{{{caption|}}} | <br>{{{caption|}}}}}</th></tr>}}

The | needed is inserted anyway as having an extra | in there doesn't affect image markup I don't think. The extra test then kicks in and if there is something in the alt text variable it sticks that value of that after the | making the markup correct. David Newton 09:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further if you want to extend it to have a fallback system then you may well be better using the ifexpr function. That will allow you to use Boolean logic.

Plotting this out as an algorithm the first check would seem to be if there is anything in the alt text variable and if so to use the value of that variable. A normal if expression should suffice there. You would then need to use Boolean logic for the next two steps. Step two would be to check whether the alt text variable is empty AND if there is anything in the caption variable and if so to use the value in the caption variable. The third step would be to check whether alt text variable is empty AND whether the caption variable is empty and then use the value of the magic word. David Newton 09:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines

Hello. It isn't redundant. It is a common practice in categorization process here. I categorize pages here for almost a 2 years. Have a nice day. - Darwinek 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Preview

Thanks for the tip on using the Preview feature. I wasn't aware of it before. I'm using it now which should cut down on the number of "save points" that I leave in the history log. However, I'm in a situation where I'm constantly being pulled-away from my PC and I'm reluctant to be away from the computer for any length of time without saving my inputs to make sure they don't get lost while I'm away. Hopefully, though, it will cut down on the number of times I save while editing an entry. Cla68 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor

"I've just archived the last 10 months of Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor to Talk:.../Archive02. Since a lot of the December comments were yours, you might want to check and see if there's anything you want to put back on the active page. But most of them seemed to be signing comments you'd made months ago as "K D Faber'. —wwoods 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

You caught me. I wasn't signed up then. Just figured I'd give people a chance to reply to my page. I may've added a few things then, but no sweat; if they were on the page then, any replies've come & gone. Trekphiler 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roncador's conning tower

In USS Roncador (SS-301), you included a statement that does not appear in the DANFS history: "Her conning tower was placed in the Navy Museum, Washington, DC prior to Roncador being scrapped." I just took a picture in Point Loma of her fairwater and masts. Is it really the case that her conning tower (the pressure hull) is in DC while the outer works are here in Southern California? That's hardly impossible, but if so, she may be one of the most widely-spread boats in the world! Big Blue Marble 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got that from NavSource: "Final Disposition, Conning tower was placed in the Navy Museum, Washington, DC prior to being scrapped." http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08301.htm

It could of course be wrong. —wwoods 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image name problems

I reccomend you re-upload or revert Image:Stockton.jpg, for semi-obvious reasons (Someone uploaded a wholly unrelated pic over top of it!). Thanx. 68.39.174.238 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your take on this

Hi there again!

I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // FrankB 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter templates

Nope, no objections. Now that you've made brilliant use of if statements, these templates can all be merged together appropriately. Those extra templates have been biting at me for a while. As for colours, I think there was some discussion here and here quite some time ago about using just one colour for all the characters. If you weigh in on the arguments there, perhaps we could implement the use of just one colour across the board. And for nitty-gritty details like how the columns are justified, I think it's safe just to use the general format of {{HP character}} for all the other character templates. Excellent work. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mathematical notation

Hello. It appears that on April 22nd, 2004, in Dirac equation, you changed

\epsilon \sim {\frac {p^{2}}{2m}}<<pc

to

\epsilon \sim {\frac {p^{2}}{2m}}<\!\!<pc

by altering the TeX code so that "<\!\!<" appeared where "<<" had been. But TeX is sophisticated and has a standard way to do that: just write \ll. That gives you this:

\epsilon \sim {\frac {p^{2}}{2m}}\ll pc

Michael Hardy 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family trees in general

Do you like doing family trees in general? I saw what you did with the Harry Potter setting family tree, and I was wondering if you might be interested in tackling a larger one.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, much much bigger actually, and the family may have to be split into several trees. The family of which I speak is the Wold Newton family. There are literally hundreds of people in it, and though the list is alphabetical in nature, it does not show relationships all that well. However, if you do not know the family tree template here, and don't feel up to the task, then don't worry...the list will have to do.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The first problem is that the people on the list aren't all related by blood or marriage. There seem to be quite a few separate families of various sizes. Pedigrees could be made for each, and would probably be worth doing in several cases if they've got their own pages. But the second problem is that the family tree does not have a high density of information—you can only get a couple of dozen names on a screen. I suppose you could also include their dates. A properly indented list can show off the generations, with brief notes on how individuals or groups are connected to the rest of the universe. —wwoods 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese city

I noticed you recently edited the Japanese city template in order to fix some things, such as SymbolImage. I don't actually know how it was behaving before, but the sybmol part appears now without a caption at Matsuyama, Ehime. The source of the template makes me think the caption is supposed to say "Symbol of Matsuyama city", similar to the symbol caption at Ehime Prefecture. I don't know the template syntax, so don't feel comfortable editing it. --MattWright (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it wasn't like that before -- it seems someone else has fixed it now anyway. --MattWright (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Can't argue!

re: your GG II edit summary... 17:10, 24 May 2006 Wwoods (Talk | contribs) (The cover art by Tom Kidd (illustrator) is adapted from Rembrandt's famous Night Watch (1642). [A bigger scan would be nice.])

I'll have to see if that one's in the 1632.org image gallery. If not, I'll pick on Eric for a better image. Really just saying "Hi"! Sad news on Jim Baen, huh and Damn it!

I'm supposed to be taking a longish WikiBreak and addressing a 'Honey-Do' list, so my presence here is a figament of your imagination... if the wife asks! <g>

My ploy to go 'rope-a-dope' and see if anyone would add significant content (excepting your template, that is) while slacking off in 1632 last month-plus seems to have yeilded scant results. Shrug. Best! // FrankB 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Breaker' Morant

G'day wwoods, Yeah I recall that I moved this article about a year ago to include the single quotation marks because, as you correctly pointed out, the imdb entry had the single quotation marks. There is also an article on Harry "Breaker" Morant currently located at Breaker Morant without any quotation marks. I think that consistency should be applied here and change the film article to simply Breaker Morant (film). Thoughts? -- 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job

Seldom have I seen somebody do a better job of responding to {{unsourced}} than you did with USS Extractor. Well done. VoiceOfReason 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Hancock Ellis — unsourced edit

Hi,

I noticed you added this text to Earl Hancock Ellis back in 2005: "Some allege that he was assassinated by the Imperial Japanese authorities for his outspoken criticism of Japanese expansionist tendencies; others point out that he seems to have suffered from alcoholism and could conceivably have died of cirrhosis of the liver or some other alcohol-related disease." (diff). If you have a source for the information, please post it to the article and/or its talk page. Thanks, Omphaloscope talk 12:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit histories, I copied that when I merged Earl Hancock "Pete" Ellis into Earl Hancock Ellis. That text was in the original version created by Jpbrenna [4]. I don't know what his source was.

—wwoods 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bays of Maine

Someone had tagged it for speedy, and I removed the tag. I don't know what the eventual form you intended for it to be, but is it something that would be better served at List of bays in Maine or even a category? Cheers. Syrthiss 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "List of..." is better of course, and I've renamed it. I plan to stamp out a bunch of stubs for these, so I started by compiling this list to work from. —wwoods 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.vietnamproject.ttu.edu/dd786/ship's.htm. As a copyright violation, USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786). If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786), after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Please note that I did check the page and the Portal is clearly marked ©Copyright 2005 The Vietnam Center, Texas Tech University Please correct me if this is wrong; -- - Glen 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) has been listed as a copyvio based on the site that Glen S references. Please do not restore the contents of the article (Glen tells me you did once already) as that's not good. See also Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_September_13/Articles. thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 13 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Robert H. McCard (DD-822), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Gearings

You're doing a nice job on the Gearings. I've done some of them myself -- it's good to see them getting done. No problem on the support for Richard B. Anderson. Public domain is not a hard concept to grasp, but so many 'pedians are worried about copyvio that they don't think before they speedy. Cheers. Jinian 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

Hello, Wwoods/Archive 2006! Thank you for your contributions to a Tolkien-related article. If you are interested, feel free to join WikiProject Middle-earth, a WikiProject focused on improving Tolkien-related articles in Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you join in the effort! Here're some good links and subpages related to the WikiProject.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page. Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! —Mir l e n 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BRAC comments

I have taken a few steps in an effort to get the BRAC template off of our mainstream articles. I hope that these additional measures solve the problem of still having this thing out and about on our articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Lapon SSN661

Wwoods Thanks for your recent cleanup of my revisions to the Lapon history. The indexing, etc. was a big help. I was an officer on Lapon from pre-commissioning (1966) through mid 1970. There are several small errors I would propose correcting. I believe the statement, "She spent most of 1968 going through training programs and cruising along the East Coast of the United States. Into 1969, she prepared for a Mediterranean Sea deployment with the Sixth Fleet," appeared in one of the PR pamphets published later in Lapon's career. In fact, we spent most of our time training along the East Coast every year. In the latter part of 1968, Lapon deployed on special operations (not in the Med), earning a Meritorious Unit Commendation. To my knowledge, no plans were made to visit the Med during my tour of duty. So, unless you have information to the contrary, I propose eliminating those sentences. Also, I have some trouble with 31 August 2004 as the date the ship ceased to exist. I have seen this date used before, but have been unable to verify what it actually means. Can you help? Again, on behalf of the rest of the crew, thanks. Bill

Templates

There is a poll regarding whether the style of family trees should be in ASCII art or fixed-pitch pixel. But there's also something else that may be of interest to you (I've noticed you tweak with templates a lot) — I just updated and reorganized the Templates page, so if there's anything missing there or in need of concern, then please either tell me so on my talk page or on the talk page of the Templates page. Thanks! —Mir l e n 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox mountain--wow!

Thanks for doing so many conversions to Infobox mountain! -- Spireguy 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One point, though: would it be possible not to add all the available fields, but only those that are actually used? It doesn't make sense, for instance, to add (even empty) fields for date of last eruption or of first ascent to Burrow. --Stemonitis 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Elendil in LOTR?

Hi. You're right, they don't make an appearance themselves, since they're all dead by the point LOTR starts. Elrond and co. only talk about them. I'll just add "mentioned only". But they also appear in The Silmarillion, but that purports to be a history, so they're also dead when the author is writing... I'll bring it up on the WikiProject Middle-earth talk page. Uthanc 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese links

I don't know how to link directly to another language version of Wikipedia. That's why I put them as external links. Were the links already there? I couldn't see them when I looked at the pages. Cla68 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, the interwiki links are at the very bottom, e.g.:

[[de:Seeschlacht von Guadalcanal]]
[[fr:Bataille navale de Guadalcanal]]
[[ja:第三次ソロモン海戦]]
[[pl:I bitwa pod Guadalcanal]]

They show up as links at the top and bottom:

(Or in the sidebar, depending on which skin you're using.)

"In other languages: Deutsch | Français | 日本語 | Polski"

If you do want to link something within an article, stick in a colon at the front of the link:

[[:ja:第三次ソロモン海戦|the Japanese version]] -> the Japanese version

I can't read the article, but I recognize the pictures; looks like the English-language article before you got into it. I see the link to the English version has an 'FA star' on it. —wwoods 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm learning more about how Wikipedia works the hard way, by screwing something up and then being corrected on it by a more experienced editor. I'm going to revert all of the links I added, since it seems they were unnecessary and/or inappropriate. Cla68 09:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Launched (launching)

Yes, it would probably be easier for me to move Launched to Launched (album). Sorry, I didn't notice. Put it down to me being a rookie. Bubba hot ep 18:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I've just made it worse by making a complete hash of the move. Launched still goes to the album! I will have to acquire the assistance of admin. Sorry. Bubba hot ep 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Your redirect worked. Mine didn't. Is it because there might be a delay for it to actually work? Anyway, apologies for the inconvenience. I really thought I was doing the right thing, but "What links here" is a relatively new concept to me. Bubba hot ep 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City

You wrote: "I propose instead getting rid of the unnecessary exceptions by moving Chicago and Philadephia back." Do you really think that would solve it? Have you looked at who is making the requests for the moves, and do you understand why? Have you looked at how how the "foolishness" disappeared abruptly for Canadian cities when they split from the U.S. policy? Have you thought about why that is? --Serge 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question about army ships

I found a page on the internet that says the General Frank S. Besson, Jr. (LST) is an army vessel. I'm curious about Army ships (the subject seems so contradictory, right?). See my last edit: [5] for a pointer to the hull I'm talking about. As far as I can see, it's in active service. Anyways, I'm writing a book, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't making up something completely implausible . There's also that interesting Army involvement with the sea-borne nuclear tests in Operation Argus these were Navy vessels, fitted with Army missiles and munitions. So it would seem that the Army gets their feet wet from time to time. Do you have anything you can tell me? Thanks, alex. ... aa:talk 10:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gearing class

Good job on the Gearings. It's nice to see the list of destroyers turning blue. I'm going to work on the rest of these. I did note that some of them are listed as being started as Gearings, but never finished. What are your thoughts about putting them in the template of Gearing destroyers? I've been putting them in that cat. Jinian 15:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. The template already includes Seaman (DD-791), which was launched but never commissioned. {{Balao class submarine}} and {{Tench class submarine}} also include ships which were cancelled at various stages of construction.

—wwoods 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USN flag template

Hey! I noticed that you were using the USN flag template a lot. I saw that when you insert it, you put parenthesis around the year, and I realized that I had explained its use oddly. I put (year) in italics and parenthesis to kind of indicate that you weren't supposed to write the word year, but insert a year there; I probably should have just done the italics and left it at that. As you've seen, the template works fine if you put the year in parenthesis, but it's not necessary, so if it makes things easier for you in the future you can just leave the parens off. TomTheHand 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I wondered about that, but didn't think to ask. —wwoods 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie fans

But one, or even a few, person's edit does not make a good citation. It is not a reliable source and is full of weasel words. If you can't find an independant, well respected website or journal discussing this then it should be removed. Konman72 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Winnipesaukee

I understand your thinking for blocking the anon with his/her annoying "official web site" edits, but a 24-hour block so quickly seems a bit fast on the trigger, perhaps? It's probably the same person who did the other anon IP edits, but we can't be certain. - DavidWBrooks 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I haven't done a lot of blocking users, so I am not sure of my calibration. However, all three of that anon's edits were the same insertion, so I didn't think it would do any harm. Maybe the block will make him notice that he's doing something wrong--that they aren't just getting misplaced for some reason--and look around to find out what's happening. —wwoods 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metric conversions

I'd be perfectly happy to have 'em rounded. I'm never sure how much acc is appropriate. My problem (a small one) is, for instance, 30m=295', not 300, & that's a big nuf err to be significant. I can live with it, tho. Trekphiler 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

"claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it." Right. "Some material taken from DANFS" isn't "attribution" when the entire page is taken virtually verbatim. That's "implying original authorship". And that's plagiarism by any definition. Of course, by claiming only "some material", you open researchers to claims they plagiarised. And you open researchers to never knowing what else might be. I guess you don't care about that, being too satisfied "public domain" protects you from DANFS lawsuits. Trekphiler 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in here, but... wwoods, you'll want to check some of Trekphiler's previous postings on this subject. It appears to me that he takes up this standard occasionally. Of course, he could be acting in good faith, but he may simply be making a point. Jinian 21:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation request

Can you respond to this edit - [6]. I went back and checked the history, and found you added that sentence in this edit [7], so you'd be in the best position to cite a source. Raul654 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I'd already noticed that, and was going to get around to it (had to get a cat off my lap to get to the book).

—wwoods 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. On a side note, I had just enough cash left on my Intel gift certificate I won last week to buy a used copy of Downfall off Amazon (it's been on my to-do list for a while). Raul654 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light Displacement Questions

I'm wondering if we couldn't group the standard loading conditions together and make a bigger article that would cover off military and commercial craft?? Please read further in Talk:Light displacement. Jmvolc 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. (Although Lightship seems out of place.) Maybe just expand Displacement (fluid) or Tonnage? —wwoods 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh yes ... that link. In marine circles, Lightship is the term used to describe a ship that is complete but devoid of all load items. Effectively just the vehicle and nothing else. I'll bash away at the article and let me know if I'm drifting off base. Jmvolc 02:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Stability conditions (watercraft). In the spirit of Wikipedia, I have plagerized heavily from your articles. Please decide if you would be willing to redirect your two pages Light displacement and Full displacement there. Jmvolc 03:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What's the term for the difference between full and light? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwoods (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Parche, not Halibut

Thanks for pointing this out. Abe Froman 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Wrinkle in Time

Thanks for fixing up the novel's article after that rather abrupt deletion! It looks much better now. Just FYI, I do plan to fix up the "Locations" heading, added by Random Critic to shorten the List of fictional planets, so it's a bit less terse. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Idea?

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you about editors who plunk down tags and move on without explaining what (they think) the problem is. However, I don't think being hit with a 'wet noodle' out of the blue is likely to get many good reactions. How about starting by posting a comment on their talk pages and/or the articles' talk pages first? If that doesn't get a response in a few days, and there's nothing obviously wrong with an article, move the complaint to the talk page.

—wwoods 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Mount Kearsarge

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Kearsarge#Image_by_Paskell. The image you added to the article is not the Warner Kearsarge but the Bartlett Kearsarge. JJ 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]