Comments
- "The classic example is the Battle of the Falkland Islands ..." this is the "classic example" according to whom?
- Sturm, I'm guessing "According to historian X, the classic example ..." or "In the Battle of ..." would work for the Rambling Man, and I think he's right ... opinions should be attributed. - Dank (push to talk)
- Lemme see if I can find an attribution.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it to best rather than classic. The existing cite suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Best according to "Robert Gardiner"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is insufficiently notable to not even have an article? Forgive my ignorance, but you're saying that one guy (who is "non-notable" per Wikipedia) is the sole source for the "best" example here. Just seems a little incongruous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sturm, many Wikipedians think a statement like this represents an opinion that needs to be attributed in the text, and some want the attribution to an expert, at least at the FAC or FLC level. Rambling Man, I haven't read a tenth the books that Sturm has, but even from my reading, I know that he's representing this accurately; everyone who writes on the subject thinks of this battle as paradigmatic. It wouldn't be going too far to say it's common knowledge among naval historians. What's the best way to represent this in the text without going into a winding digression along the lines of, "X [list of credentials] calls it this, Y [list of credentials] calls it this", etc.? - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people quoted in Wikipedia lack an article. Has nothing to do with notability per se. He's a published author, nothing incongruous about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you're saying that "in one man's opinion" this is the "best" example. What makes his opinion so important? Are there any other sources which back up the "best example" claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <Puzzled>A consensus is not needed and never has been on Wiki. Don't need anybody else's opinion; one man's published opinion suffices since it conforms to WP:V and WP:RS.
- Just curious how one man's opinion (a man who isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article) counts as absolute. I'm only asking if anyone else in the world shares his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank already explained the consensus position above. Although, again, such consensus wouldn't be needed to justify any superlative. Only takes one author's opinion to support provided it meets V and RS.
- What's the fundamental point that you're trying to make here? I'm perfectly willing to add an additional cite duplicating the existing one at the end of the paragraph to further clarify that this is Gardiner's position, though that seems an unnecessary duplication to me, but what are you looking for? You seem to care quite a bit that nobody's written an article on Gardiner, although that has absolutely no bearing on any notability he may have, and that some sort of consensus is needed to justify the superlative of best, when, in fact, nothing like that is necessary, nor has it ever been. You've made a number of other worthwhile comments that have improved the article, but I'm wondering what the issue here is since we seem to be talking past each other?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point, I guess, is that you're saying definitively that the "best example" of something is based on one guy's opinion. That's all. It may be me but when I make such claims, I tend to use at least two, preferably more sources to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unnecessary by Wiki standards, but fair enough. I only add multiple cites when I have two or more sources that disagree; an explanatory note is advisable, rather than just picking one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sturm, different Wikipedians have different standards on this. Whether and how WP:PEACOCK applies depends on whether the statement feels like "This is the greatest!", and that's going to vary depending on the reader and the material. WP:PEACOCK is just a short section in WP:WORDS now; well worth re-reading. Bottom line: when you can find a snappy way to do it, "show, don't tell" (and then if the reader draws the conclusion themselves that it's the paradigmatic battle, that's fine). Sometimes you really want to get across that something was the "best" of something, but it's complicated and there isn't a reasonably quick way to lay out the facts so that the reader can put that together for themselves, and in those cases, quote marks and attribution to someone or something the reader can recognize may be appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's "flash protection"?
- Going from memory, the issue was protection of the ammunition magazines, but Sturm is the expert here. - Dank (push to talk)
- "a speed of 25 knots" do you mean a "top speed"?
- I don't remember having seen this point in style guides but I'll keep an eye out for it. In a list of cars, if someone writes that a car has a certain turning radius, would you object that it should be
"maximum "minimum turning radius"? Consider another sentence from this article: "... sacrificed armour protection and one gun turret from the main battery for a 4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) speed advantage." Just a personal preference, but "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage" seems too involved, and rewording seems too verbose. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what I mean to say is that the cruisers did not always travel at 25 knots, their top speed, however, was 25 knows. And perhaps instead of "advantage" it should be "increase in top speed". And I'm not surprised it's not in style guides. It is, after all, just a point of description, not a rule of grammar. And in car lists, I'd find a list of maximum turning radii to be a very odd thing to list. Perhaps minimum...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, struck "maximum". My point is, do you like "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage", and if not, where do we draw the line on omitting "top"? Btw while I've got you ... great copyediting instincts, please weigh in on our articles any time! - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I like the alternative I suggested (i.e. "increase in top speed"), but it's difficult to draw a line in something so qualititative... (as for copyediting, just ask!). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and I will. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted to the original phrase as I think it is perfectly clear that top speed is being judged. Who wouldn't understand that if my car has speed advantage over somebody else's it refers to maximum speed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't just the "advantage", it was all mentions of speed which actually should be top speeds. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The key specifies top speeds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose before the lead doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mind Rambling Man's request for more exact phrasing in a couple of places, it does no harm and maybe it's a little clearer. This current edition of Chicago is great and it wouldn't surprise me if I stumble across this issue in the next month. But I never see the extra words Rambling Man is asking for in a long list of technical specifications. I have a Nissan Altima with a 150-horsepower engine and a 12-volt battery that deliver an acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds. I've never seen anyone describe that as a maximum of 150 horsepower or 12 volts or a maximum acceleration; that goes without saying. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet somewhere you have a mention of the "top speed" of the vehicle though. I'm not asking for maximum or top horsepower, but you must concede that cars have "top speeds" in specifications, not just "speed". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The top speed is mentioned in the key, with all the other stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose before the key doesn't (i.e. my original point). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel that it needs to be explicated; it's not hard to understand what is meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So adding the word "top" in the prose before the key is not possible? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be jiggered. I just spent a lot more time on this than I should have, and came to two conclusions: references to cars are much more likely to avoid "speed" as a synonym for "top speed" than I expected, and references to ships are much more likely to use "speed" (meaning "top speed") than I expected. For the first 20 ghits on "ship "top speed"" where it's reasonable to assume some professional copyediting and where there were more than just a few random mentions of speed, every one of them uses "speed" synonymously with "top speed". I don't know what to make of that. On the question at hand: I don't see a problem with adding "top" before the key; it's not like the phrase "top speed" is unknown among aficionados or historians. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many things are possible, but I don't see a need and it detracts from the prose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how making things clearer and more accessible to non-experts and less ambiguous can be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's just a style thing because I don't see it as ambiguous at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Style? But you have top speed in the tables.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but it doesn't mess with the flow of the text in that position.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, by now it's clear that you're not going to budge, which is a shame. Good work besides. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "again appointed" you didn't mention he had been appointed to this position beforehand.
- Worth explaining what a "magazine" is in the context of a "magazine explosion".
- Linked, and changed to "artillery magazine". - Dank (push to talk)
- "They spent most of the war" previous sentence ends by talking about just one ship, so this is mildly confusing.
- Nice catch ... but I think the thing that makes it mildly confusing is that the wrong sentence is first in the paragraph, and I fixed that. - Dank (push to talk)
- Is it World War I or First World War? I'd prefer the latter, but whichever, be consistent.
- We lean towards "First World War" in BritEng articles, and there was only one "World War I", so that was the one I changed. I recently found out that WP:AWB automatically checked for duplicate links, and I'm trying to find someone to use it on our FAC and FLC articles, it would have caught this ... anyone? - Dank (push to talk)
- Sometimes you hyphenate e.g. Lion-class battlecruisers, sometimes you don't, e.g. Admiral class battlecruisers. Is there a reason?
- Caught the two we missed. There's a recent policy change in WP:TITLE, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text", and I'm wondering if, by analogy, we also want to use hyphens in titles when they'd be used in running text ... I think the mistakes here came from copying the article title. - Dank (push to talk)
- "sinking her within five minutes of opening fire" of who opening fire?
- Ref 39, for consistency should be 172–73.
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
