Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 12 November 2013

Welcome

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! It's always a pleasure to have another editor join — we can never have too many good editors.

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages: Our most important principles and philosophies. Or if you're interested in specific polices, see our Policies and Guidelines page.
• Open tasks: These are important things that aren't getting done. We need your help with them.
• Tutorial: What you need to know about editing pages.
• Test area: If you need to test an edit but don't want to perform the test on an article.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk, or leave me a note on my talk page.
• Manual of Style: Suggested content standards.
• Always Always Always try to maintain neutrality in your contributions.
• Try not to be anonymous. Sign your comment (like I did this one), by using the tilde '~' symbol: add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of a post to leave your username and the timestamp.
• Be bold in editing pages.
• The Misplaced Pages Signpost: Misplaced Pages's community newspaper.
• A happy editor is always successful. Have fun!

Cheers and good luck, Ingoolemo  15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice Work

Out of curiousity, what reference are you using? McNeight 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And, I meant your work on List of military aircraft of the United States. McNeight 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Primarily, I used my own page, which is the link given at the bottom, under References and External Links. I compiled that from a number of books and webpages. The best websites are probably Andreas Parsch's page, Joe Baugher's page, and Aerofiles. The Yahoo web group on military aviation designations is very good too. Derekbridges 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

List of military aircraft of the United States Changes

Why the changes on List of military aircraft of the United States for Liaison and Utility? L-26 can be traced to all three companies, and is there any real difference between linking to U-22 Bonanza versus Beechcraft Bonanza? It looks like there is some kind of standard you are working off of. McNeight 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Two issues here: for the L-26, I cut the list of companies down to the original name of the company when the designation was given. I hate to see things like Boeing F-15 Eagle when it should be McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. By looking at the McDonnell Douglas page, you can see that Boeing owns them now. The way you listed the companies was fine, in my opinion, since you had all of the companies, but it looks cleaner without losing any information if you just use the original company. It's not based on any standard I know of, other than my personal preference. (Of course, the original company I put in for the L-26 may be wrong, but I think it's right based on what I could find.)

For the U-22 Bonanza, I changed the link since it redirects to Beechcraft Bonanza anyway. You can change it back if you want, but I don't see any reason to unless you're going to create a U-22 Bonanza page. One other thing that I like to nitpick about is the military name vs. the civilian name - I don't think the U-22 was called the Bonanza in military service. I can't find any reference one way or the other, so I left it as is. Derekbridges 01:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

For the L-26, that's completely understandable. There really isn't a reason to list a second manufacturer unless they were a significant contributor to the original design, like the Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey. Part of what I didn't like about the three manufacturers for the Aero Commander is that two of them were stubs, but that shouldn't be imposed on the aircraft listing.

For the U-22 Bonanza, I agree that the military name isn't automatically going to be the same as the civilian name. In fact, I now remember that the U-22 was really used as a sensor platform in Vietnam as the QU-22 "Pave Eagle" . And the YAU-22 PAVE COIN evaluation aircraft (Bonanza with hardpoints) just freaks me out.

I've noticed however that there are a number of page redirects such as U-22 Bonanza and U-16 Albatross that seem to be for search-engine reference only. McNeight 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

June 2010

Thank you for your recent contributions, such as Wampanoag class frigate. Getting started creating new articles on Misplaced Pages can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wampanoag class frigate

A tag has been placed on Wampanoag class frigate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant to create that in my own user namespace. No problem in deleting it for now. Derekbridges (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Army Mine Planters

I noticed you have cleaned up some links and did some other work in the USAMP area. I was puzzled as to why you deleted the category "Mine planters of the United States Army" as that was the predominant WW II service of those ships and, by removing the category, they vanish from the listing of mine planters for readers interested in the entire group. I have restored the category for those reasons. It would perhaps be better to have separate entries for the ships under the Army names and then linked Navy entries, though for most that was sitting in reserve or brief. The real problem is that the Army did not do service histories for these ships as did Navy and CG and even their full duty station assignments are sometimes vague. NH&HC DANFS for most is sketchy as well. Probably the most notable service and best documented history for those that eventually transferred was the USCG service period and that deserves an entry. I've been off on other projects and completely neglected some planned Army vessel additions here so if you are interested it will be nice to have some help. Palmeira (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

List of United States Navy ships: S

Hello. I have reverted your changes on that page because you didn't explain why you changed all the pennant numbers to 1. And honestly, that doesn't make al lot of sense. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change any pennant numbers to 1. If you look at my revisions, I converted the links from the normal format to use the USS template. Derekbridges (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good job then, but at first it was really confusing because you didn't make any statement in the edit summary. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Nice work on the List of ships of the US navy. Your hard work is much appreciated. Bonewah (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Derekbridges (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to USS Missouri (BB-63). Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent

I noticed that you made the proper links to the ships mentioned in the article "LIst of Puerto Rican military personnel" and I thank you for it. I was wondering if you could drop by three other articles and do the same for the ships mentioned in their respective "World War II" sections. They are: "Military history of Puerto Rico", "Puerto Ricans in World War II" and "Hispanic Americans in World War II". Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Derekbridges, You might consider writing something (anything) on your WP:User page. It will get the red out of your edit histories. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reformatting ship links

Can I ask why you're reformatting ship links en masse? As I understand it, the {{ship}} and {{sclass}} templates are an editing shortcut, for those who don't want to type out the entire ship name twice; they make no difference to the way the link is displayed on the page. If someone has taken the time to type out the wikilink in full, changing the link into a template is completely pointless, and possibly detrimental – there may well be reasons why the templates aren't being used. For instance, the "List of shipwrecks" pages are most frequently edited by new users, unfamiliar with template syntax, who tend to copy the format of the other entries when adding a new item to the list. Wikilinks are fairly easy to grasp, but it's pretty much impossible to figure out how the ship templates work from first principles, without knowing how to navigate to the template page and read the documentation. In addition to that, adding hundreds of templates to a page really slows down loading times. So just, please, stop converting wikilinks to templates unless you've got a very good reason. Or at least stay away from the lists of shipwrecks. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your work in fixing ship links all around Misplaced Pages, please accept this barnstar. Ed  16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Derekbridges (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! This is the second request on your user talk page. For the good of other editors, please start using edit summaries. — Brianhe (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ship class template

Thanks for working on the ship class templates - keep up the good work there. Just wanted to say, since I noticed you depluralising the lead articles on occasion, that this was discussed at WP:SHIPS a short time back and the general consensus seemed to be that pluralising the ship class article in the lead of the template was a good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Lissa (1866), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monitor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh...

Funny what muscle memory will do. Thanks for catching that :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SMS Schlesien may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Balkan War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bismarck-class battleship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page H class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in March 1945 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bernhard Rogge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Stanley James may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• After the operation against the {ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst||2}}, James was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in recognition not just of the raid, but for his

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {|class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%;"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of ships and submarines built in Barrow-in-Furness may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| class="wikitable sortable"
• |-]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMS Ramillies (07) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• no British losses, but three of the Italian boats were sunk and four damaged by the light cruiser {[HMS|Ajax|22|6}}.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of ships of the Chilean Navy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the {{convert|25000|LT|t}} ] {{ship|Chilean battleship|Almirante Latorre||2|up=y)}} to small ]s and early wooden vessels.
• | {{ship|Chilean ironclad|Blanco Encalada||2}} (1875)]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1941 in aviation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• aircraft carrier {{HMS|Victorious|R38|6}} score a ] hit on the German ] {{German battleship Bismarck|''Bismarck'']] in the ], aggravating damage she had sustained early in the day in the [[
• "Mountain Recess"), ] "Liz"); first four-engined land-based aircraft designed for the ] and first

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Laws (DD-558) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ship of the ] named for ], who served in the Navy during the {] and ] in the early 19th century.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in 1934 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ship

Hi I would like to know your opinion in this issue: Talk:List of ships of the Chilean Navy#Template:Ship. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See my related response under the "ship links" heading below. --Derekbridges (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

HMS Conqueror (1911) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to King George V-class battleship

HMS Thunderer (1911) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to King George V-class battleship

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colossus class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

ship links

Why are you changing perfectly good ship template links into regular links? You're spending a lot of time making changes that are invisible to the reader and have no appreciable effect on loading times? Furthermore you seem to be unaware that pre-dreadnought redirects to pre-dreadnought battleship so changing the phrase into two separate links is pointless? Please stop these senseless changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had others complain when I do use the ship templates: "Moreover, as I understand the template, it is a overload for the wikipedia server 1) to read the template, 2)convert to simple wikilink and 3)then to render as html code. The simple wikilink reduces the last to 2 steps. According to the template page, the {{ship}} is a typing short cut for linking to ship articles." - Keysanger (talk) Now, I'm told that it's an issue when I don't use the ship templates. I'm only trying to fix up small formatting changes since I don't have access to references, etc. The resulting text is the same if I use the ship template or not, and I thought by making the changes I was reducing page loading times and load on Misplaced Pages servers (based on earlier comments). If I can get a clear explanation on whether it's better to use the ship templates or not, I'll use the better option. --Derekbridges (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@Derekbridges, it is not fair to cite partially. Here the complete contrib in Talk:List of ships of the Chilean Navy :

Hi Derekbridges,

The template doesn't allow to change the ships name from "Almirante Cochrane" to "Cochrane" (just to list all "Cochrane"s). Moreover, as I understand the template, it is a overload for the wikipedia server 1) to read the template, 2)convert to simple wikilink and 3)then to render as html code. The simple wikilink reduces the last to 2 steps. According to the template page, the {{ship}} is a typing short cut for linking to ship articles. But if the link is already typed, what is the reason for the substitution?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the underlying concern would be why are you bothering since the changes are invisible to the reader? Keysanger may have a valid point about lists with a bunch of templates on them, I don't know, but I really doubt that one or two templates make any difference. Somewhere there's a policy or guideline that says don't bother to make changes that only tidy up the code and that's what I feel you've been doing. I'd much rather have you going around cleaning up typos, etc. that are visibly wrong, than fussing over this behind-the-scenes stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Derekbridges, I think you are making unneeded changes. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

QF 4.5-inch Mk I – V naval gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to C-class destroyer

Royal Hellenic Navy in 1917 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greek submarine Xifias

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Hobson (DD-464) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• battleships were dangerously straddled, ''Hobson'' and ] made covering smoke which allowed all to retire. A few days later, the Allies [[Battle of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 4th Battle Squadron (United Kingdom) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• year=1972 |publisher=Ian Allan Publishing |location=London |isbn=978-0-7110-0380-4 |ref=Dittmar }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Axis naval activity in Australian waters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• detected in the ] were actually the light cruisers {ship|Japanese cruiser|Kinu||2}} and {{ship|Japanese cruiser|Ōi||2}} which were covering the return of the surface raiding force

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited INS Jyoti (A58), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oiler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cruisers of the Russian Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian corvette Rynda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Navy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• being completed, along with the three ] cruisers, and [[Daring-class destroyer (1949)|''Daring''-class destroyers.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

French destroyers

Hello Derek
I notice you created a template for the Adroit-class destroyers, with the edit summary "create template; definite articles in names need to be checked".
You may be interested to know there’s been a fairly drawn-out discussion on this, which you can see on the talk page, and at WP:SHIPS.
As far as I can see the French Navy (for some reason best known to itself) gave a number of its ships names with the definite article in them in the 30’s and 40’s, including a number of the Adroits (BTW it’s actually L’Adroit, according to the sources I’ve seen)
The sources on the page confirm this (Links, and Refs: And this is what Conway says) though if you find any that say otherwise I’d be interested to see them; I’ve drawn a blank on it.
You'll notice I put it as a request move, which got knocked back (which is really frustrating; though I am seriously considering moving them regardless) so I'm hardly a disinterested party; but hopefully the sources and the discussions speak for themselves
Anyway, keep up the good work, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see what you mean about the drawn out discussion. I don't have any sources one way or another; I was just going by what is on the wiki. I see that the list of ships at Adroit-class destroyer has some names with definite articles (even if the page title doesn't). I checked the French Misplaced Pages just now, and it seems that they can't decide whether or not to use the articles either. I think I'm going to create a L'Adroit-class template using (some) names with definite articles and redirect the Adroit template there. It can always be fixed if evidence is found later. Derekbridges (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, I've grasped the nettle and moved the class articles; I'll just have to see if the sky falls on my head because of it.

The French WP article(s) for these three are problematic, as they were copied from the English WP articles, IIRC (there's an attribution tag on them tucked away on each) so they aren't particularly probative.

Also (just to clarify) it is only a few French ships whose names have the definite article, and it seems it was only for a limited period they were doing this: the one's you've listed on the L'Adroit and Le Hardi templates are correct, by the sources I have. The only other destroyer class this affected was the Le Fantasque class; I don't know that you've done that one yet. Also the La Melpomene torpedo boats, and some submarine classes, but they've been done already, I think. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: You seem to have re-done the templates by creating a new page and cutting-and-pasting the content, is that right? I don't know if you know, but there's a page move function (on the tool bar, the down arrow next to the search box) which simply moves the page to a new title. Cut-and-paste moves aren't very popular, as they tend to lose the articles edit history along the way. As it's all your own work it shouldn't be a big deal, but using the page move is better; it makes things easier also. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello. I noticed that you've been creating a large number of ship-related redirects lately. Could you add {{WikiProject Ships|class=redirect}} on the talk page when you create them so that other WP:SHIPS editors would not have to tag them? Thank you. Tupsumato (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. No problem. Derekbridges (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange

Do you have any idea why Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) would be editing your user page? Is this something you want him/her doing? Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why anyone (even me, since it was blank before) would edit my user page. I don't appreciate it, and I'm going to try to find out why it happened. Thanks for letting me know. Derekbridges (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as strange... why does Toddst care? Surely Derek doesn't need anyone to point out what happening on his own user page. Anyways... Derek, I have replied to you on my talk page. FYI, I'm deleting it in 24 hours. - thewolfchild 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)