User talk:Llammakey/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Citation links

Hi,

Just so ya know, citation links don't count towards MOS:OVERLINK standards (see Duplicate and repeat links subsection).

"Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; (e.g. |work=The Guardian)."

Happy editing.

Rubbaband Mang (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I know you are the IP hopper. I will be waiting. Llammakey (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You may never see this, but my oh my, justice has been served. Llammakey (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not same person. I am not sure if you are referring to the citation change I made for the National Ship Building Strategy wikipage? Trying to follow what happened and what change, if any, you made. Bad memory. 74.73.170.202 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Good morning. I was referring to a block-evading IP hopper. They are a nuisance. Nothing to do with the shipbuilding page. Have a good day. Llammakey (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Generic Questions

Hello,

Is there a 'ship' talk page that you can post generic questions such as these.

For example,

1st question I wanted to ask why some ship info panes contain the names of the builders and some do not. I was wondering in the case of 'class' topics if its because in many /most cases these are noted in the ships table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourrasque-class_destroyer

2nd question Is it possible to add ship tables even if I do not have access to the source on the basis that the information can be gathered from the individual ship pages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogador-class_destroyer

3rd question Can I convert ship lists in articles to ships tables even if I do not have access to the source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aigle-class_destroyer Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Some editors do not list builders in the infobox because there are so many. Though in the case of the Bourrasque class, that article is not even close to being complete, so they could still be added. As for the Aigle class, please go right ahead. That article lists the ship in a format no longer in use. As for the Mogador class article, a table would be good there, but you would absolutely need to have the citations for that as it is a good article. Good articles require citations when adding material. Llammakey (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"''Crusader'' 1865 ship" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Crusader 1865 ship has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 10 § Crusader 1865 ship until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

List of Memorial Cup champions

Please see ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Memorial Cup champions, and comment if you want. Flibirigit (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Rerating Ferré-class submarine?

Hello, I just wanted to ask about your reasoning for rerating the Ferré-class submarine to start-class. I don't want to seem combative, I just want to know so I can better understand the rating system. Of course, there is some variation in assessments between who's reviewing the page, but I want to know what you thought the article lacked for B (or even C) class. Thanks, Tylermack999 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The big one is: the specifications are listed, not in prose. Needs to be in prose. Everything in the infobox needs to be in prose and cited. See Bismarck-class battleship for how to set up a warship articles structurally. Beyond that, the tense "would be" is wrong. Should read "were scrapped". Batteries needs to be linked. The the non-naval reader, a battery is a thing you put in your TV remote. The word "purchase" is used twice in the same sentence. Next sentence "would be" used again.

The background section needs expansion. Why did they choose submarines, in the previous paragraph they said they were looking at cruisers? Why would what Ecuador is doing affect what Peru is doing? That is background info that needs to in the background section. Was there a recent war between the two? Competition for fishing grounds or territory? As for cites, Navypedia.org, Naval Encyclopedia, www.submarinesonstamps.co.il, laststandonzombieisland are not great WP:RS. Conway's Fighting Ships is free to access at archive.org (you just need an account) and probably has all the specifications and building history you require. Furthermore there might be some info on why Ecuador and Peru were competing. Hope that helps. Llammakey (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I just implemented an expansion to Ferré-class submarine. I expanded each section, included a historical background, and replaced most non-academic sources with better ones. Thanks for the tip on Conway's Fighting Ships as well, it gave me a good source for specifications and it's definitely going to come in handy later on. Let me know what you think of the changes.

Thanks, Tylermack999 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I rerated the article as C. The specifications section still needs to be turned into prose. Good job. Also there are some Harv/sfn errors on the page. Llammakey (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)