User talk:Lyndaship

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, I wanted to get your opinion on something. Back in June 2023 Whoop Whoop Pull Up added a Why? template to this text.

Unlike the Skates, this new design was maximized for underwater speed by fully streamlining the hull like a blimp. This required a single screw aft of the rudders and stern planes.^[why?] Adoption of a single screw was a matter of considerable debate and analysis within the Navy, as two shafts offered redundancy and improved maneuverability.^[1] The so-called "body-of-revolution hull" reduced her surface sea-keeping, but was essential for underwater performance.

IMO, "maximized for underwater speed" and "essential for underwater performance" answers the question Why?, unless we go into a major tangent of minute hydrodynamic theory. I want to just delete it. Your thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you but obviously the editor who added the why template felt it was not clear. Therefore you should ask them why they added it. I suspect the wording can be tweaked so it is obvious that changing the design of the sub to a single screw streamlined the hull and maximised underwater speed Lyndaship (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple sources about ithe boat's fate. yet they were deleted in your edit. I think history should be above design. Yoy also deleted Russian scare point which was instrumental in buying of ships. Could you tell the reasoning behind your edits? Changeworld1984 (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to improve this article. Unfortunately I think I reverted all your changes for one reason or another. Firstly obviously the design section should come before the history section, then you changed gender against WP:SHE4SHIPS and missed out italics for ship names. These minor faults could of course be changed while retaining the substance of your edits. However then the major problems appeared, firstly you had introduced an error misreading the references with regard to the delivery port and then used a lot of non WP:RS to promote a claim that the ship was not scrapped when the sources seem to be uncertain which ship this was. The RS state that she was scrapped, find another RS which says she wasn't and feel free to add it but not blogs and associations which have no editorial oversight. With regard to the Russian scare again you need a RS which supports that, the existing article stated French and Russian scares and it was sourced. I would suggest Conways and also theres a book about the Australian Colonial Navy which might give further detail Lyndaship (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that boat was not scrapped, if I implied then I am truly sorry. I wrote in my original edit 'In 1912, it was declared for disposal and was stripped of all its useful fittings at Williamstown before being beached ashore on Swan Island' and then wrote about its resting place. I also quoted Rose author of Australian Colonial Navy on the topic of boat's resting place. In ''Twenty Years of recording iron, steel and steam shipwrecks in Western Australia (Presenting the work of Col Cockram, MAAWA)'', a research paper in which Russian scare as the leading cause was mentioned on page 142 which was cited in the article. I misread the delivery point which I admit as it was referencing SS Darwin port, a ship, but I assumed it to the place Darwin. And I also didn't know about the policy of the ships being refered as she. Thank you for clearing my doubts about the edit. Changeworld1984 (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point about the Russian scare. I think on balance that source your quote can be regarded as RS, although I would prefer if it was sourced to the original research paper or Ross Colliers book we use many less authoritative sources on wiki and I don't see this as any different. Feel free to add it back. I am still dubious about Nepeans fate as the sources which are mostly personal views seem to cast doubt if the remains are that ship or her sister ship Lyndaship (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is not clear what happened, I added the words suggested but I think it is a important part of its history so it should be added. Thanks for your help and suggestions. Changeworld1984 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Just to say thanks for tidying up the mess left behind by the portal deletions. Such edits often go unappreciated but do make life easier for those who edit the articles in future. Certes (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. Rather enjoying doing it! Lyndaship (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this edit by PrimeBOT. Leaving aside the issue of whether we should be editing old discussions, it looks as if we may have an automated way of unlinking discontinued portals. Certes (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I discovered this just after I had finished clearing Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals manually. Never mind it was an enjoyable week working out why they were in there and I learned about JWB and Regex through doing it. I agree about not changing old discussions point Lyndaship (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your JWB edits are leaving a stray vertical bar behind: Special:Diff/1208184843. 85.76.13.79 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. They should all be resolved now Lyndaship (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lyndaship!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may already know this, but it's pointless to add "|0" to a conversion that already has non-zero digits in the ones place. It doesn't change the precision in the conversion. Also it's a bit misleading to add an edit summary "more precise tonnage conversion" when you've changed the displacement conversion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I discovered this late in the day and ceased adding it enmasse. I still intend to continue to add it displacement tonnage when the tonnage ends in a zero as seeing 1000 long tons (1000 tonnes) is incorrect and confusing. I do not accept that my edit summary is misleading, displacement is a tonnage Lyndaship (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian