User talk:Llammakey/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

naming conventions and redlinks

Greetings

In this edit you did two things:

1. changed how some ship's names were represented, internally - a change that did not change how the wikilinks to those ships were rendered to our readers.
2. changed how some of those ship's names were disambiguated - Athabasca (HBC vessel, 1888) for instance, you moved to Athabasca (1888 HBC vessel). This change also does not change how the wikilinks to those ships were rendered to our readers.

While you moved the articles for the blue links, you did not edit the disambiguation pages, or of other articles, for the entries that were redlinks.

So, Athabasca (HBC vessel, 1888), Athabasca_River_(HBC_vessel,_1912), Athabasca River (HBC vessel, 1922)] were linked to from both the disambiguation page Athabasca and Boats of the Mackenzie River watershed and Hudson's Bay Company vessels.

I think if there is a topic for which redlinks exist it is best if all those redlinks to that topic share a single name.

Have you ever heard of Henry Spencer? He was an influential UNIX guru of the late 20th century. He had a button he wore to a Usenix conference that made an excellent point. It mockingly said, "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many different ones to choose between". I don't think it matters whether we disambiguate using (HBC vessel, 1888) or (1888 HBC vessel). Functionally, each would be equivalent, if used consistently, because our readers should never notice the disambiguators. I chose (HBC vessel, 1888) out of respect for the standard that Dutch guy set a dozen years ago on the commons. I'll use a different standard here, if we agree on a different standard here.

I don't use the {{ship}} template. I don't use it for several reasons.

1. The English language wiki is not the only wiki I work on. In addition to commons I work on some non-WMF wikis. I try to restrict myself to the subset of metadata that works everywhere. If I learned how to use that template properly, and got into the habit using it, I'd be sure to mess things up by using it on a wiki where it didn't exist.
2. There is an aphorism, generally regarded as wise, in Engineering and other related disciplines - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The {{ship}} template might allow ship's names to be expressed more concisely, internally. But that comes at a cost of transparency. It is less clear to a maintainer what the underlying article's actual name is. It is less clear to a maintainer how that name will be rendered. And, due to the inherent increased complication behind the {{ship}} template, there are more opportunities for the conversion to using that template to introduce new errors. The {{ship}} template strikes me as breaking the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule.

November 30, 2020 was one of the days I worked on expanding Boats of the Mackenzie River watershed. I spent all day at it. With one exception all the other edits I made that day were to disambiguation pages or articles that linked to one of those vessels. I was making sure ships that were potential targets for a standalone article were redlinked consistently. I thought that was worth spending time on.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN Llammakey (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think I am quite familiar with OWN, thanks. If you mean to suggest my concerns are an instance of OWN, I disagree. Are you sure you gave my concerns fair consideration?

In particular, my concern that, by changing the targets of some wikilinks, and not changing others - like creating new redlinks to Athabasca River (1912 HBC vessel) and Athabasca River (1922 HBC vessel), in Hudson's Bay Company vessels, when OTHER articles still link to those topics at Athabasca River (HBC vessel, 1912) and Athabasca River (HBC vessel, 1922) aren't you unnecessarily introducing new opportunities for error and confusion?

I said I would follow any naming convention we agreed to. I think voicing my willingness to follow any agreed upon convention establishes I am not lapsing from OWN. I said why I adopted the (disambiguator, yyyy) disambiguating convention. It is the one largely used on the commons, and adopting it here means articles here would use the same disambiguators as on commons. I see this as an advantage. You are free to make a case for your preferred style. Should I assume that, since you didn't link to a wikidocument, or forum discussion establishing your preferred style, that your preferred style is not based on a consensus? If it is based on a previous discussion I'd welcome a link.

I think the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" aphorism is a wise one. I think you make a mistake to characterize my repeating this aphorism as a sign I am lapsing from OWN.

You've started dozens, maybe hundreds, of fine nautical articles. I know, because I get automatic heads-up about some of their creations, and over the last N years, I have told the system to send you dozens of "thanks", to encourage you to keep up your fine work. So, I've supported your fine work. I think we mainly agree. I think I get to, occaasionally, disagree with you, without making you feel defensive. Geo Swan (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You know what GeoSwan, I can't find it. I assumed it was in the guidelines somewhere because all of the articles I've seen use that method, but I have apparently been operating under a false assumption. I apologise for going ahead with all the moves, and I have corrected all of the links to those pages you have linked. I am going to ask for guidance from the WPSHIPS community and maybe see how they want to move forward. Sorry for the trouble. Llammakey (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Been following this with interest because of the comments about the {{ship}} template. Was going to suggest taking this to wt:ships. Should just copy the whole thread over to there. Cheers (talk page stalker)

• Liammakey, I am going to repeat my respect for the fine work you have done, over the years. I'll look forward to voicing my opinion at the discussion you start, if you leave a link to it here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you GeoSwan. Here it is. I am trying to update the guidelines so that they are more clear, but it is kinda devolving into a free for all right now. Llammakey (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

CNAV/CFAV Endeavour

Hi

I saw you moved CNAV/CFAV Endeavour to just CNAV Endeavour, and inserted "(later CFAV Endeavour)". I don't know anything about ships, and only came across that article while browsing recent changes for vandalism, but I can't see that the sources say anything about a name change. The plaque just calls it "CNAV/CFAV". So I wondered how you know that it was first CNAV, then CFAV, and not for example called CNAV/CFAV its whole life. Best regards Knuthove (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

CNAV and CFAV are ship prefixes. Only one is used at a time. CFAV and CNAV are not part of the ship's name. Llammakey (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I see now that Canadian Naval Auxiliary Vessel (CNAV) changed to Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel (CFAV) after the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1968, three years after the Endeavour's commission. I added a small note on that in the article. I guess the title should still be its original name, even though it only bore the name for less than a tenth of its service? Knuthove (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It should be whatever the name it was most known for, which according to the plaque, was never HMCS Endeavour. HMCS Endeavour redirects to the current article, so all is good with the move. Llammakey (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

HMS Sylph (1795)

Hi, thanks for tagging HMS Sylph (1795), I completely forgot to do so myself! You rated the article as C-Class due to coverage and accuracy. Would you be able to point out what the article fails in so that I can have a go at improving it?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. The end of the article is my one issue. I didn't think you were finished, because the last paragraph of later service states "On the night of 17 December 1804 Sylph, HMS Thisbe, and HMS Niobe were all forced to cut away their masts to save themselves from being destroyed during a gale off Guernsey." But you did not state what happened to them afterwards. Did they repair themselves and return to blockade duties, did they return to port to repair? A sailing ship without masts is pretty ineffective. I know in the following paragraph it was just a short time later until the vessel was laid up, I was just curious as to whether the damage they suffered in the storm led to the ship being laid up. Hope that helps! Llammakey (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The source I used doesn't provide any further details on the event past the cutting away of the masts, so I'll make an attempt to look elsewhere. Thanks! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

CNAV/CFAV Endeavour

Hi

I saw you moved CNAV/CFAV Endeavour to just CNAV Endeavour, and inserted "(later CFAV Endeavour)". I don't know anything about ships, and only came across that article while browsing recent changes for vandalism, but I can't see that the sources say anything about a name change. The plaque just calls it "CNAV/CFAV". So I wondered how you know that it was first CNAV, then CFAV, and not for example called CNAV/CFAV its whole life. Best regards Knuthove (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

CNAV and CFAV are ship prefixes. Only one is used at a time. CFAV and CNAV are not part of the ship's name. Llammakey (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I see now that Canadian Naval Auxiliary Vessel (CNAV) changed to Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel (CFAV) after the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1968, three years after the Endeavour's commission. I added a small note on that in the article. I guess the title should still be its original name, even though it only bore the name for less than a tenth of its service? Knuthove (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It should be whatever the name it was most known for, which according to the plaque, was never HMCS Endeavour. HMCS Endeavour redirects to the current article, so all is good with the move. Llammakey (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

HMS Sylph (1795)

Hi, thanks for tagging HMS Sylph (1795), I completely forgot to do so myself! You rated the article as C-Class due to coverage and accuracy. Would you be able to point out what the article fails in so that I can have a go at improving it?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. The end of the article is my one issue. I didn't think you were finished, because the last paragraph of later service states "On the night of 17 December 1804 Sylph, HMS Thisbe, and HMS Niobe were all forced to cut away their masts to save themselves from being destroyed during a gale off Guernsey." But you did not state what happened to them afterwards. Did they repair themselves and return to blockade duties, did they return to port to repair? A sailing ship without masts is pretty ineffective. I know in the following paragraph it was just a short time later until the vessel was laid up, I was just curious as to whether the damage they suffered in the storm led to the ship being laid up. Hope that helps! Llammakey (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The source I used doesn't provide any further details on the event past the cutting away of the masts, so I'll make an attempt to look elsewhere. Thanks! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted articles on ship indices

Hi - saw you reverted my removal of a deleted article on a ship index page. Wanted to know why an article that has previously been deleted (rather than just being a red link that has never been created) is worth keeping on these pages for my future understanding. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Because a red link does not automatically mean that it will become an article. That red link could possibly be used as a redirect to the battle in which the ship was sunk. Also the information that you so casually deleted about there being another Housatonic and its fate, is exactly the kind of information that should be on that set index page. You could remove the template and leave the ship name italicised with all the info intact. Instead, you blanked the info. Why? What did that do? That eliminated the fact there was another ship named Housatonic. That seems relevant to the subject. Stop treating these pages like disambiguation pages. They are not. Llammakey (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for X-Press Pearl

On 3 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article X-Press Pearl, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

CL-154 class article guns

Help! Please see Talk:CL-154-class cruiser#Use of metric conversion functionsTfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Just setting up the AOPS Pages

Hello Llammakey, I am just setting up pages that should be done for the RCN. It is my first time doing this, so I am just getting use to the community, so I am fairly open to guidance and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonCanadian (talk • contribs) 14:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No they are not. Ships that are not even launched should not have a page. I gave you a link, go read that. Also, if you have been reverted for a thing, do not then repeat that thing three more times. Llammakey (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

SIA vs. Disambiguation

If you like lists of ships, there’s a big list of them that could use your attention over at Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I went through them and edited those that needed some attention. For the most part, they are stable articles that will be completed once the actual ship articles are finished. Since I have thousands of those on my plate, it might be some time before I get around to expanding set index articles. Llammakey (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all of the work you do! It has not gone unnoticed. Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dakar-class submarine

Hello Llammakey, I'm Kishore. It has come to my notice that have frequently resorted to reverting my edits on multiple articles related to submarines, despite my counter-attempts to reverse them.

In accordance to your edit to the Dakar-class submarine on 27 January, 2022 - I would like to point out the following -

{1}. You have frequently erased the hyphen (-) symbol connecting the name of the submarine i.e., Dakar, with its prefix i.e., "class". Moreover, you have sent me the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) convention to substantiate your edits, but I would like to disagree on some points -

(i). The "Naming Convention" article stipulates that the class' name, when written in an article - should by hyphenated, with the name italicized, such as in Olympic-class ocean liner, or the Benjamin Franklin-class submarine, or the the Admiral-class battlecruiser. You can find it "Using ship class names in articles" sub-section. Despite my re-edits, I fail to understand why you are erasing them.

(ii). You have removed the names of particular submarine' classes - such as the Type-218SG and the KSS-III from the "See Also" section, stating that they are already in the article. Yes, they are already in the article - but that does not mean that they have to be compulsorily removed from the "See Also" section, isn't it. If the user desired to view that particular link i.e., Type-218SG - he/she would have to scourge through the article to find it. Instead, if it is mentioned again in the "See Also", he/she can click and view the article with ease, instead of having to search through he article just to find it.

Please do not reverse my edits. It's a bit annoying. --Kishore Editing 11:24, 28 January 2021 (IST)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship class names in articles if you had decided to read it

Thematically common class names are rendered in normal font:

and

Additionally, ship class names have a noun form and an adjectival form:

,

so you will be reverted. Furthermore per MOS:SEEALSO,

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.

So you did not read what I suggested. Llammakey (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just my 0.02¢, but I agree with and believe that the hyphen should be included, and that is the standard result when using the sclass template (and also 6 of the 7 availble formats (that apply) on the template as well). That said, I must also point out that we don't add links to articles in the 'see also' section if it is already linked in the body of the article. There may be some rare exceptions, but normally it's not done. Hope this helps (jmho) -

wolf 09:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Could you fix an error on the "List of Shipwrecks in 2022" page?

Apparently, the ship name thingy doesn't allow for "MT" as a prefix, and a ship on the list is "MT Tresta Star", and now the template broke because of the oversight. Could you fix this, in a way where we keep the MT prefix in the template? I know your good with this stuff. Oh, and https://unb.com.bd/category/Bangladesh/18-trawlers-sink-in-bay-3-fishermen-go-missing/87092 & https://unb.com.bd/category/bangladesh/trawler-capsize-at-bay-3-missing-fishermen-rescued/87103 Llammakey Thebrakeman2 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Just throw a the word ship and then a | in front of the prefix if the template is giving you fits. Llammakey (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

ref field in the cite template

Do you understand what "ref=" is supposed to do in a cite template? I sure don't. Does it add an extra anchor, or does it replace the default anchor?

I ask because of this edit [1] which was then later "fixed" by this bot edit: [2]. I've been putting sfn templates in that article, sometimes to eliminate duplicates, sometimes to fix errors. I've been using the default anchor and it seems to work. I hope I haven't screwed anything up. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, it's just another version of cite format. The [#XXXX|XXXX] is an old format and the bot is just updating it so that future editors know what the code means. To my knowledge you are not doing anything bad, but make sure you have asked on the talk page if you can change the cite format. I've run into some overzealous administrators who revert all the changes because the question was not asked, not caring if you have fixed cite errors or duplicates. Llammakey (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Lady Joan FitzGerald

Dear Llammakey. Thank you very much for the improvements you made on the article Lady Joan Fitzgerald. You replaced almost bare URLs with properly filled {{Cite}}s, which I find is a true improvement. I personally prefer changes that improve articles, even if they break the letter of some guideline, over changes that implement a guideline but make the article worse. Being an apprentice-editor and while admiring your 100,000 edits I wanted to ask you, not to criticise your action but to further myself on the learning curve: are not the article's citations in a consistent style that may be dubbed "<ref></ref> URL title author publisher" that holds other information in addition to the URL and are therefore not bare-URL citations? Would not according to WP:CITEVAR consensus of the article's major authors be needed to change the citation style? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Johannes. I will revert myself since you seem to demanding CITEVAR. Have a great day. Llammakey (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

SS Lion (1867)

Hi Llammakey, I noticed the improvements you made for HMCS Marvita, lovely job, thank you. I was hoping that if you had some time you might also look over a page I created a few years ago, SS Lion (1867). When the page was first created, It was categorized as a Stub, rightfully so; it was only a few lines long. Since then, several improvements have been made to further expand the article, which I now believe may fall under Start or C classes. Thanks, LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 1:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi LilJohnnyWimple. I took a look at the article as you asked, reorganized it and added cites where I could. One of the original Jarvis cites is dead and I assume that is where you got the measurements. I also reassessed now that the article has more cites. Hope that helps. Llammakey (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Llammakey, it looks great and was a big help. I believe I did get the measurements from that dead link. I thought I got it from the Newfoundland Encyclopedia, but I searched for it and was wrong. https://collections.mun.ca/digital/collection/cns_enl/id/1827LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

SS Stephano

Hello again Llammakey, would you be able to look over another vessel article I recently published, SS Stephano? Thanks, LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 1:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. I gave it a quick copyedit, but as I am busy in real life, it will take me some time to go over it and add info. Sorry I can't help more in the short term. Llammakey (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ouragan-class landing platform dock

Template:Ouragan-class landing platform dock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Invite

Hey, I saw you are editing a lot on broad topic articles such as Integer‎‎, Space station, Gunpowder, etc. I think you may be interested to join our Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles and its drives, such as the 30 kB drive, where we expand articles to 30 kilobytes. See you there! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Harry DeWolf Class

My sources are the Wikipedia pages of the Danish and Irish navies Ashen Knight (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source Llammakey (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, have added a reference from the Canadian Naval Review. Was actually inserting reference when I was reverted

Bluenose Gunner (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion and the revert. Thought I was being brigaded. Thank you for the reference, I tidied it up a little bit. Llammakey (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bayard class

I feel like I saw that, realized I needed to fix it, and then got distracted and lost track of it at least a couple of times. Thanks for fixing it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Llammakey (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Haida Gwaii reverts

12 years is a long time, and the islands are known by this name now. Happy to start a discussion on the talk page if you think there is reason to keep Queen Charlotte Islands in various other articles, but there is already a substantial body of discussion there at least about the article's name. I personally think it's worth updating other articles to Haida Gwaii given how long it's been and the increased common usage, which is why I've made a few edits. Not particularly following the reference to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS either - are you saying that you feel that updating the name is activism inappropriate for Wikipedia? "Pepper" @ 00:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

When the ship sank it was called Queen Charlotte Islands. Installing anachronisms for the sake of political correctness is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Just like we do not write London when talking about Londinium in Roman articles or Indonesia when discussing the Dutch East Indies during colonial times or even Toronto when discussing the burning of York in the War of 1812 if you want to get closer to Canada about it. Things had different names at different times and it is okay for them to be called that. Changing every mention of the Queen Charlotte Islands to Haida Gwaii in periods when they were not called that reeks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Llammakey (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that historical name would remain appropriate in those contexts. My interpretation for the shipwreck examples specifically is that the reference is to the land as a geographic position, not the land's affiliation in the human world, so it felt more correct to apply WP:MODERNPLACENAME. "Pepper" @ 22:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case, my suggestion is to pipe it. The source uses Queen Charlotte Islands. If one was to see Haida Gwaii, and look at the source, one would have to click on the link to get the explanation. Llammakey (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Llammakey!

Happy New Year!

Llammakey,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Leonard W Murray

Thanks for the edit to the article class. The reason I moved it to A was because I was trying to follow the guidance on how to solicit an A class review - when I read the rather convoluted guidance I understood I needed to move it to A and then initiate a discussion. But I have not figured that out. Can you please advise me on how I can initiate a review? The article has been built up further since it was rated GA and I am aiming to get it to A before 8 May, the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. Thanks Friendofleonard (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are the instructions on how to get it in the A-class review queue A class review. Just a heads up, it is considered good form to help out with other reviews to help other editors get their articles promoted. Llammakey (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RFA Proteus (K60) naming convention

Hi there - thanks for your contributions to the RFA Proteus page. I have moved the page back so that the title includes the pennant number. This is the convention for every other RFA ship, and the templates that link to them. This is also the convention for ships that have no predecessors with the same name, RFA Tiderace (A137) being an example, although there are lots of others. Happy to discuss on the talk page for the article if you wish. :) Xtrememachineuk (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your Page Move Requests

Hello, I have worked on some of the requests you've made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests regarding the USS ships. You're doing a great job finding dozens of articles that are titled incorrectly. I have a proposal that you might find interesting. See a new thread started today at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I know there is a lot, but those are only the ones I cannot move by myself. I asked an admin and they told me to bring it there. I added an explanation on talk page. Llammakey (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Llammakey. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving articles and broken redirects

Hello, Llammakey,

When you move an article, please check "What links here" first so you can see if there are any redirects to that article. If there are, then please leave a redirect behind when you move that page. I know as a Page Mover, you can not leave a redirect, but by not leaving a redirect, you can break a lot of existing redirects to the article. I check our broken redirects lists and sometimes there are dozens and dozens of broken redirects, valid redirects, because a Page Mover decided not to leave a redirect when moving an article. This is especially important with long-standing articles that have been around for years and over that time might have acquired quite a few redirects. THere are also certain subjects, like academic journals, that tend to have a lot of redirects and we don't want all of the redirects to those pages broken.

If you do leave a redirect when doing a page move, then one of our Wikipedia bots can correct all of the double redirects and change them so that they now point to the correct, new page title. If you don't leave a redirect behind, then those existing redirects are broken and an admin or bot can delete them before it's noticed that they need to be changed. It's also more time intensive to manually correct broken redirects rather than just leaving a redirect after a move and having a bot change them.

The easiest way to avoid these headaches is just to check "What links here" prior to a move. If there are redirects to the article, then leave a redirect when you do the page move. Also, please leave a redirect when moving the Talk page, too. If there aren't any existing redirects to an article, then you can omit the redirect. Simple! Good luck with your new responsibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, this is doubly true if you are correcting a bad page move done as vandalism. Frequently, vandals target popular articles, those with lots of redirects, so even though it can be tempting to not leave a redirect when moving an article from a really bad or stupid page title to the correct title, please do so so we aren't left with lots of broken redirects. We can always delete the redirect from the bad page title after the bot has done its work. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot that part. Am going over all my page moves that I've done since I received the permissions. Llammakey (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Self redirecting talk pages

Hello!

Thank you for your recent work in fixing ship article names, but please remember to update the talk page redirect so they don't redirect to themselves (such as Talk:USNS Dalton Victory (T-AK-256)). I've fixed all of the recent cases. Thanks! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Eejit43. I missed that part. I have cleaned up all my newer ones and will pay better attention to the talk pages. Llammakey (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thank you! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Page moves & talk pages

Hello, Llammakey,

I was wondering when you are moving pages like USNS Phoenix, why do you leave a redirect for the article page but not one for the talk page? It's resulted in a lot of broken redirects to talk pages (dozens at this point) that needed to be deleted by an admin and wouldn't require admin intervention if you would just leave a redirect when you move the talk page. It doesn't take a lot of time to delete all of these broken redirects but I just didn't understand why we have all of them for talk pages of ship articles. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am only swapping the pages. Therefore the redirect already existed. Sometimes the redirect was not created with a talk page. If a redirect has a talk page, then I fix the talk page. Are you saying I should create the talk page redirects even if there wasn't one to start with? I did not know that I had to do that. I thought I had to fix only the talk pages that already existed. Llammakey (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

You're now moving pages with the summary "only ship of name" when in fact the US Navy has several ships with the same name - the only difference is the prefix; USS vs USNS (which we know is changed at times on the same ship, and is of often confused by readers who use one prefix to search for the other). Since there are multiple ships with the same name, (as clearly stated in the hatnote in lead), these ship articles should retain their hull codes. - wolf 05:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The ships are already previously disambiguated by the prefix. It is the equivalent of HMS and RFA - both service the Royal Navy, one is commissioned, the other is not, and have different prefixes. That is why I leave the hatnote. A ship can be referred to as USS **** or USNS ****, but the article does not need disambiguation. Llammakey (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem I'm worried about is that editors did not create redirects for alternate names for the ships. Ship that should be disambiguated, like some of the SS or MV ****, are not, even though there could be other ships similarly named out there. I have already fixed two, because I happened across the ship with the same name prior in the day, but I'm sure I missed some. If you see any of those, please tell me, so I can create the set index and re-add the number. Also if I miss anything, please, feel free to tell me. I will gladly correct my mistake. Llammakey (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

USS and USNS aren't the name, but a prefix, and they are very similar, as opposed to HMS and RFA. They are poorly understood by many readers, with USNS ships beings searched out as USS and vice versa, and beyond that, some of these prefixes are changed from one to the other during the life of the ship. But going back to the original reason for the move, it was stated that it was "the only ship of that name" which is not the case. With several of these articles, there are multiple ships with the same name, as as such, the page shouldn't have been moved to delete the hull code, as that is what we use as the disambiguator in cases of ships sharing the same name. Will you move them back? - wolf 18:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take this to WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. I don't think I can make that call on my own. Llammakey (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not? You moved the page on your own in the first place. - wolf 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Because I want clarity. I don't want to undo work that does not need to be undone and going forward since you have raised this issue, I want to make sure I am doing things correctly. Llammakey (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The topic is posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#USS and USNS. Llammakey (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, wouldn't these be considered a contested moves now? I thought contested moves went back to quo until it was determined which way to go? - wolf 18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which ones should be returned? I've done so many lately you will have to remind which ones they were. Llammakey (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the discussion on WP:SHIPS, I have been doing it correctly. The USNS and USS ships are different and do not need further disambiguation. Llammakey (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Coast Guard Star
		I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star for your rework of article titles and the removal of unnecessary cutter hull numbers on dozens of Coast Guard and Revenue Cutter Service articles. This effort included setting up redirects for each article. You are to be congratulated! For your efforts, I award you the Coast Guard Star. This award has only been awarded eight times before. Thank you and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) Cuprum17 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Seeing that you've been removing some unnecessary disambiguations, could you move Kapitan Khlebnikov (icebreaker) to Kapitan Khlebnikov as there is no need for disambiguation (similar to Kapitan Dranitsyn). Tupsumato (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Done! Llammakey (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Tupsumato (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, Llammakey,

Just a reminder that when you move an article, you should remember to move the talk page as well. wbm1058 has been straightening out some of these page move problems (like with USS S-42 and USS Gar). Since you are a page mover, you should be able to check off the "Move associated talk page" box when you move an article so that both pages are moved at the same time.

Thanks for all of your contributions to our articles on ships and military vessels especially making sure they have correct page titles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, is there someplace I can see which pages I missed? Since these were US submarines, I feel like these were early in my page moves and I had not figured that out yet. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the Transformers page

	the Roll-out Award!!
	Thanks for editing on the Transformers article!! keep up editing good!! :) Babysharkboss2 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

AIDAaura

Can you help please with the AIDAaura which has again been prematurely moved following reported sale, by the same editor that you advised to pay attention to WP:NC-SHIPS - it's over a redirect so I cannot do it. I don't see how the article can be at Lara even before the change happens, and before the ship carried a single passenger. And then the ship has become very well-know as AIDAaura over the decades and in my view the change should wait until she becomes at least a bit well-known under the new name. Davidships (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Same with MS Dream (1998). Davidships (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Davidships. I tried to move AIDAaura back but the editor did something to prevent it. I put in a technical request. As for MS Dream, that article title has been like that since July. Is there something wrong there that I am missing? Llammakey (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting AIDAaura sorted. On Dream, there is at present no referenced content to support this change, so it doesn't come anywhere near meeting WP:NC-SHIPS. As it happens, it is true that the ship has now changed name and operator, and I will add some content on that shortly. But that doesn't mean Dream is the "best-known name" - for English-language readers that must be Sea Princess, borne during 20 of her 25 years. Do you think that it would be better if I posted an RM proposing that, rather then revert to the equally non-notable Charming? Davidships (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I would do a requested move. Even though I undid some other problematic page name changes that the editor performed, they were fairly straight forward. From the edit history of Dream, this is probably beyond my abilities much like AIDAaura. I agree though, that the ship should be under best known name. Llammakey (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll attend to this in my time-shifted tomorrow. Davidships (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Llammakey,

Not quite sure where to go with this, but since you recently edited the page I thought it was best to bring it to your attention. Someone has reverted the Hai Kun-class submarine article and removed basicly several edits that have been made over the last few days, including yours and others such as @Sarrotrkux, for seemingly no reason. The edit summary only says "references removed". SailingthroughHistory (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sailing, I reverted them and warned them about vandalism, especially due to the lack of edit summary. Llammakey (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Convoy ON 92

Hello
Thanks for tidying this page up, and for weighing in on the talk page (I would have just sent a history page thank you, but I wasn't sure which edit to attach it to!). No doubt the debate will rumble on... Anyway, thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem! The followers of Sabaton have been attempting to put their songs into every nook and cranny of Wikipedia as historical fact. I do not know why, but this is not the first time I've seen them claim that Sabaton is the most knowledgeable source of history. Llammakey (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Llammakey. Thank you for your work on BNS Shaheed Farid (2022). User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou

An article that you have been involved in editing—Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)