User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive/2005

This is an archive of User talk:Joshbaumgartner for threads concluded during 2005. If you wish to make a comment on an archived item please move the entry to the active talk page (or reference it at least) and add comments there.

See also User talk:Joshbaumgartner and User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive.

See also User talk:Joshbaumgartner/Archive/2006.

I would appreciate any commentary here regarding the re-write for the World War II article here. I welcome all commentary, but would appreciate it to be constructively presented. Thank you! Joshbaumgartner 07:50, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC) Note that the re-write is now posted at World War II/temp for comment and contribution by the Wiki community. Please post there on this matter from now, thanks. Joshbaumgartner 00:33, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Nice work on the Participants in World War II article - I created it after taking the bulk out of World War and you've now done some fantastic work expanding it into a decent article in its own right. violet/riga (t) 00:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it is nice to get positive feedback. Obviously there are a lot of countries as yet untouched that need some description, but the form is there for others to add at will. Joshbaumgartner 00:30, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate the addition of the naval battles in the Mediterranean sea to the category of WWII naval battles, but could you please tell me why you methodically erase the reference to 'Italian Navy' category from the battles fought by Regia Marina? (ex. Second Battle of Sirte)

I noticed your recent changes in ABB. It's somewhat... uhm... unusual. Are you sure about that? Rl 07:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your objective is very laudable and many articles could do with a better presentation (e.g. Apple (disambiguation)); it's great to have more people on board who care about that. What prompted my response was that I am used to see disambig pages that try more or less successfully to look as recommended in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Examples include Johnson, Washington (disambiguation), and York (disambiguation). I am not a big fan of prescribing everything to the last detail in a Wikipedia style guide, but I think the suggested format for dab pages is pretty good and it's considerably easier for editors and readers to use the same format, so I would like to invite you to use the format as described in said page. Rl 19:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm with Rl, in that I think the current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) does a pretty good job defining a useful and consistent format for dab pages. You might want to drop in on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) where these issues are currently being discussed. --RoySmith 01:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We generally like to have a fair amount of articles in a category before splitting of to create sub-categories. Having cats with 2 or 3 articles is to small. Oberiko 22:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I'm in agreement. I'm doing some various clean-ups and fixes and so for a while, you may find some various duplicated categories or 'lightweight' categories on a temporary basis. I think you will find that soon it will be settled down. I will do my best to ensure I clean up my mess after the construction. Thanks, Joshbaumgartner 22:34, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave your categories alone then. If you need any help leave me a message on my user talk page. Oberiko 10:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oberiko, I look forward to your help actually.Joshbaumgartner 14:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

There are some very lightweight categories , Is Anti-tank rifles of the United Kingdom ever going to get to three? GraemeLeggett 10:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme, good point on that one. I will probably soon drop that one to 'Anti-tank weapons'. There are others like it as well, although as I said, hopefully it will be sorted out on pretty short order as I make my way through. Some only have one or two articles presently, but have the potential for a lot more, or have articles that have yet to properly categorized that should end up there. Basically it is coming to three things to find out on each one: 1) How many articles currently are out there on a category (this is just the number of Wiki articles currently in existance that should be in that category); 2) How much potential is there for articles in the category (basically how many future articles would there be potential for in that category); and 3) For 'light' categories, does it make sense from a research standpoint to have them remain independent (i.e. would lumping them into another category have an adverse effect on the ease of finding the articles using categorization).Joshbaumgartner 14:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Josh, I noticed the new category you added, Category:Cold War destroyers of Germany. What are your ambitions for this? Will it grow beyond the three entries now there? (I am completely ignorant how many destroyers the German Navy had during the Cold War.) Just interested, JDLH | Talk 04:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they had more than three...but that doesn't mean the entries exist currently in the 'pedia. If I truly there are only three articles and it is likely to remain that way, then maybe it gets demoted to the next level categories. A similar quandry is the 'class' categories issue. They are fine for classes with lots of ships in the class, but some exist for classes of two ships, which means maybe three articles (one for each ship, one for the class). Do we demote because they are too thin, or keep them for consistancy in having each class have a corresponding category? Joshbaumgartner 07:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh. I see that you've created Category:Military equipment by country. Is there a reason why you didn't use the existing Category:Military equipment by nation? I'd like to merge these two entries if you have no objection. Oberiko 18:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen with the clash with "British" and Royal Navy cats (eg from Category:Royal Navy ships}. GraemeLeggett 20:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objection personally to nation vs. country, although I've been lectured (and ultimately convinced) about the proper use of country vs. nation. I'd always used nation, but it seems that country actually is the more specific reference to a particular state, while nation is a more general reference to identity. I'm not convinced enough to carry out an argument for one or the other. As for Royal Navy vs. British, I really don't know that either is fully appropriate. Royal Navy is the precise name of the navy of the United Kingdom, and so it's not innappropriate, but are other similar categories under all other nations listed with the specific name of their current navy, or by the more generic title, simply using the name of the country. As for British, I've seen controversy around its use, and so for most things I prefer using United Kingdom when referring to the country as a whole or England, Scotland, etc. when referring to its parts. British is fine as an adjective I guess, but it also has the same issue as American vs. United States in that it alphabetizes to a completely different part of the list.Joshbaumgartner 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please stop doing the unofficial category renames where you simply create the new category, move the articles, and orphan the old one. This is leaving the orphan categories cluttering up the system, and is not the proper way to do renames anyway. All category renames are supposed to go through CFD, so that they can be discussed thouroughly before being implemented. One person's opinion on a proper rename may not be the same as the next person's opinion. From another angle, there are a number of people with software Bots that are regularly used to implement large moves from the CFD page, so that the individual articles do not need to be moved one by one. Saves a *lot* of work.

And finally, this is to inform you that I have placed a large number of duplicate military categories up for Merge/rename/deletion. This includes a number of your recent unofficial renames, in order to gain official validation or repudiation of them. I may dislike how you've been handling your category moves, but you *are* an expert in this stuff. Your input on the various rename/merge votes would be greatly appreciated, even if you disagree with me. (Actually, especially if you disagree. :) ) - TexasAndroid 18:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to follow the CFD process...I wasn't aware of the problem I was causing. I will comment on that page. Thanks! Joshbaumgartner 22:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I am sorry to say that what you say above is not so accurate because a while ago I alerted you to your over-zealous categorization. You have since deleted my concerns, but let me recap. I first brought this to your attention on 10 Nov 2004: "...You have created a lot of confusion by re-categorizing many of the articles relating to the "Military of Israel"...." see my full reaction at [1] and at [2] Then I alerted you to problems with your redirects at [3] and problems with Wikipedia naming conventions at [4] and a warning that You are creating TOO MANY overlapping categories, see [5]. Warnings about your creation/s of DUPLICATES "...Josh, you created Defense companies (American spelling) when someone has already created Defence companies (British spelling). You must check these things BEFORE you rush to create the categories. Are you listeninbg or do I need to bring this matter to the attention of some Wikipedia administrators?..." [6] and [7] Then this plea was issued: "Help us out, Josh - create worthwhile articles, not an organizational nightmare. Tronno 05:49, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)" [8] It is now almost one year, and Wikipedians are still "begging" you to co-operate. Hopefully you will now pay more attention to this! Hopefully... IZAK 06:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, it is difficult to give much positive attention to your caustic attitude, which is unfortunately the same as it was prior. TexasAndroid was very helpful in mentioninf the CFD process, one you did not mention. Android's attitude is helpful, and I have already contributed to the CFD pages as he suggested. If you doubt this you can go look for yourself. Joshbaumgartner 07:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Josh: I was pointing out a pattern of hasty creations of categories and moving them around hither-and-thither without looking to check out the "lay of the land" on Wikipedia first. IZAK 07:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Izak, that is not the case and isn't the issue here. This is a procedural mistake that I was unaware of and have now corrected. My categorization work is and has been for some time, very careful to create clean categories with consistant names. The issue brought up now has to do with using the CFD pages, and now that I am aware of them, I a using them. The issue is not 'over-zealous categorization' as you state, but a simple procedural matter. If you take a moment to review my comments on the CFD pages I am sure you will see that my efforts are not a case of willy-nilly 'hasty creations' but in fact part of a larger effort to bring consistancy and ease of use to the rather large segment of categories under military equipment. The CFD process is helpful to acheiving that and again, I thank TexasAndroid for presenting that to me. I did not however find any such useful suggestions in your statement. As you can see above, when concerns are raised, I deal with them thoughtfully and considerately.Joshbaumgartner 07:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I respect that. IZAK 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hiya. Thank you very much for your kind words. I do try to be very diplomatic in my conversation. That said, I'm back with more criticism, but please take it as constructive criticism, because that's the intent. You missed an important step in the new submissions you've made to CFD today. When submitting a category to CFD, you should always tag the category itself. This lets people who come across it that might have an interest in it's fate know that there is a vote going on, and how to find the vote. There are actually several differenttemplates you can use to tag categories with, depending on the exact purpose of the submission:
• {{cfd}} - Category for Deletion
• {{cfr|New Name}} - Category for Rename
• {{cfm|Merge target}} - Category for Merge
• {{cfdu|Umbrella Name}} - For an umbrella nomination, including multiple items in one nomination. I did this on the last one I submitted yesterday, the one with the "by date" categories. Since the individual entries do not have their own headers, this lets you point to the umbrella header for the entire submission.

• There are likely others, but these are the ones I've been using so far. - TexasAndroid 13:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Seeing as aviation is your 'first love', you might want to join wikiproject:Aircraft, and participate in the discussions there with other like-minded av nuts. It also helps keep one up to date on the latest suggestions in terms of aviation page layouts etc. Only if you want to of course--Xiphon 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it's fine to be more specific when putting ships in the WWII categories, please stop removing them from their other categories. For example, you took USS Revenge (AM-110) out of the category "United States Navy minesweepers", leaving it only in "World War II minesweepers of the United States". Since the ship served well into the 1960s, that category is insufficient alone. Thanks. Jinian 13:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've moved the aircraft carriers into "Modern" vs. "WWII" categories. Modern is not a particulary useful designation, however, I'm fine with it as long as you don't remove the ships from other more general categories. For example, Enterprise has been serving for 45 years, begging the question of what is "modern". Thanks. Jinian 15:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw your nice list of all USN Ships still in commission, but according to the DANFS entry on USS Quirinus she was struck from the rolls in the 1970 - I didn't want to edit your list bc I wasn't sure of your source and maybe they conflict. Just wondering. Kaisershatner 19:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, the info in question was moved from another list...so please feel free to make the edit...DANFS is pretty well recognized as a reliable source. Joshbaumgartner 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into an edit war on the ships categories, let's discuss this. Categorizing ships only by era is misleading at best. And it's not the way it's done with other military equipment. Would you do me the courtesy of responding this time? Jinian 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay... Ships are not organized merely by era, but also by type and country. Additionally there is lots of room for vertical sub-categorization within each of these. For example, a ship can be categorized not only into a specific era, but then into a specific war for example if that is meaningful (Vietnam, or the American Civil War for example). Ship types can be broken down as far or as little as makes sense for the ship in question. Many classes have their own category for individual ships with the category then being placed in the appropriate category. So I guess I'm a bit lost as to what you are asking, as I totally agree that to only categorize by era wouldn't make sense, and that's why there are the other paths as well. It would be handy if you could be clear about how you would rather see things done, because frankly the other military equipment is not at all uniformly categorized. (note: as for responding, take a look at this page and you can see I don't ignore messages. I may be off-line for extended periods of time, but I respond as soon as I get a message. If I've missed one of yours inadvertantly in the past, I am sorry for that, but please don't make it sound like I am turning anyone the cold shoulder. I did note that you added this topic in the middle of the page, instead of at the end, and it took checking the history to figure out where you had written) Joshbaumgartner 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay. If ships should be organized more than by era, why remove the classes of aircraft carriers from the "Aircraft carriers of the United States"?

I understand what you are saying now, thanks. Generally I have been told to avoid extra links vertically in the categorization of articles and sub-cats. Thus if an article belongs in an aircraft carrier category, you wouldn't want to also have it in the naval ships category which the aircraft carrier category is part of. Now this is only a rule of thumb, not an absolute, but it is in Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories. For things in which we want a comprehensive presentation, not sub-categorized into various places, that is where a list comes into play. For American carriers, we have some fine comprehensive listings which can be linked from the broader categories.

If we're only going to have one sub-cat - which I think is a bad idea to start - then by class is a better choice. Why? Well, because Ronald Reagan by virtue of being in Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers ends up in Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of the United States. She was commissioned in 2003 and obviously not a Cold War era carrier. The era "modern" is, as mentioned above, simply not a meaningful term in an encylcopedic sense. Please reconsider your recategorization of this. Jinian 14:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I am not fully satisfied with the modern categories either. Is there a better category for the time period since the Cold War? Or should we simply merge the Cold War and modern cats together to form a newly named post-WWII (I don't like post- and pre- names, but maybe something else would be appropriate?) category? I think certainly that the structure from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is a good one, and the country/era/type structure is what I have been trying to get things to. There are some things that break the structure, and some of these are because of CfDs. Also, while I've been discouraged from multiple categories in the vertical sense, there is no reason not to have extra horizontal categories (in fact I think this is encouraged as far as reasonable) to ensure that researchers can find the article from any resonable angle. Yes, the Reagan should be categorized as a Nimitz class carrier, and yes, the Nimitz category certainly belongs in the Cold War category (so long as it exists anyway) as well as the modern category (again, so long as such cat exists). Now it is true that the Reagan is not a Cold War carrier, but I don't know that is a big problem. If someone is looking for Cold War carriers, they may end up in the Nimitz category, but will be able to see by its parent cats that it spans both cold War and modern periods. It might make sense to categorize each ship both in its class and directly in its era/type/country category. It is an interesting issue, and I'm going to put it on the ships project talk page for more discussion. Joshbaumgartner 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another note on this, I have recently put some proposals in CfD to flatten some categories where I thought it unneccessary to break it down as far as it was, but there was a lot of resistance to it (ultimately the consensus was to keep the vertical structure). I guess the answer to your question is that it isn't a removal, but a sub-categorization. Also note that the United States Navy ships categories are not broken down by era (as far as I know), and so should also be a place to see all ships regardless of era (although it appears that Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States is doing double-duty as Category:United States Navy aircraft carriers). Anyway, hopefully that helps. Joshbaumgartner 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for Category:United States Navy aircraft carriers, we had that category. Not sure when/why it went away. I can't find it on CfD archives. I'd argue that we need that category back vice an Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States.

I fully agree. The navy categories are distinct sub-cats of country categories, as they are limited to those ships actually in that navy, while country cats can include ships operated by other entities, or even which were simply built for other nations by that country. We do need a seperate USN carriers category and I will go ahead and create one and populate it. This is consistant with say battleships or cruisers, etc. Joshbaumgartner 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that slogging through the categories isn't a lot of fun and that you've done a great deal of work on it. It just seems like you did it without bothering to discuss with the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships who have been working on these articles for years. Thanks. Jinian 14:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I've actually used the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships categorization scheme as the prime directive. CfD votes have complicated things a bit. However, I'll take up some discussions on the WP ships talk page.Joshbaumgartner 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: You ignored my two previous comments on this subject -categorization of ships-, which is why this note is in the middle of your page; it's directly beneath the two comments of mine to which you never (not a just a long absence) responded. Jinian 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I guess since I had a reply to kaiser there in the same group I didn't notice that I'd missed replying to your comments...again, sorry about that! Joshbaumgartner 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Jinian 14:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you download and tell me if it works? I can't get my computer to play ANYTHING. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 05:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mine doesn't run any of the .ogg files either, sorry. Joshbaumgartner 05:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Insert bad pun about "No Dice" here). I'm No Parking and I approved this message

Please look into Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Somewhere there must be a separate section or even page about naming of ships. mikka (t) 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake...I'm already fixing it...thanks. Joshbaumgartner 20:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article you wrote on the ACV-S. It's very good to have, but unfortunately many people won't notice it because it's not linked from anywhere (i. e. it's an orphan). It'd be better to have it linked from e. g. an example of actual use in a military conflict. I know that this might be a bit difficult but I had to let you know. Thank you! --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine plan. I will see what I can add to it, and if you know anything please add as well. Thanks, Joshbaumgartner 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many submarines did the CSA have? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the category you have just created (Category:Modern amphibious wafare vessels of France) has a misspelling in the word "warfare". --Anthony Ivanoff 07:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooops...thanks. Joshbaumgartner 07:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You created a couple of categories and a nice header template for, among others, naval ships of the United Provinces. Unfortunately, all these categories now link to United Provinces, which is a disambiguation page, but should link to Dutch Republic. To pipe the link doesn't work in your cathead templates. I could subst the templates and then pipe the link by hand, but wanted to ask you for your opinion first. Maybe the categories should be renamed? (See Talk:United Provinces for why it is a disambiguation page). Kusma (討論) 00:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the United Provinces dab page issue, so I have no problem with the fix proposed. If Dutch Republic is a better official name for the categories, I can submit all ships of the United Provinces to be changed to ships of the Dutch Republic. As no expert on Dutch history, I don't see a problem with it. Joshbaumgartner 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert either. United Provinces seems to be the most common name, but a nonunique one, so maybe this should be discussed at CfD to see if these categories should be renamed to a more unique name. Is there a reason they aren't merged with the "of the Netherlands" ship categories anyway? Kusma (討論) 10:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I thought initially too. However, some felt that was too much of a conglomeration, since what was the U.P. didn't fully equate the Netherlands, and it was felt that a differentiation was appropriate, as there is for the Soviet Union vs. Russia, etc. However, the UP cats are added sub the Netherlands cats for the ease of research. Joshbaumgartner 05:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've appended some extra info to some of the carriers in the WWII list of warships, making the point that these were US-built, RN-used, then returned to the US. All true, no argument. There are over 30 of these (known in the UK as Attacker and Ruler classes). Before you spend time on this, however, I think we need to get a consensus on the scope of the info in the list. IMHO, some info, perhaps post-war disposal, would be better in separate articles and not padding out a list. I'm also guilty. Also, why a list and not a category, apart from the need to set up articles? Happy New Year! Folks at 137 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I started this list, the idea was to have a single list of all individual ships listed alphabetically, for people to look up a ship by name. This list is getting pretty hefty, and I agree a lot of the info regarding events beyond the war are probably not in scope. I am trying to use more of the guidelines from the Ships project, thus the extra information. Additionally, the carriers are entries I made on the list of aircraft carriers, which is not limited to WWII, and I haven't taken the time to customize them for the WWII list. Part of the reason to have a list is that many ships do not have articles, and may never have articles, with the little synopsis in the list sufficient for the significance of the vessel. BTW, I'm adding this discussion to the list's talk page. Joshbaumgartner 16:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]