Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) →Let me stop this right now: Reply Tag: Reply |
Undid revision 1208989462 by Peter Isotalo (talk) rv, I've collapsed it for you since you refused to strike the violation. Tags: Undo Reverted |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
::The FA community would disagree with you.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
::The FA community would disagree with you.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::So what? [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (though I disagree on your characterization of that community's position; you are confusing stewardship with ownership). [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
:::So what? [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (though I disagree on your characterization of that community's position; you are confusing stewardship with ownership). [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{cot|Unhelpful}} |
|||
::::@[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]], what point are you trying to make here? Are you arguing that we start [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|duking it out in this article]] over the merits of one vs two sets of notes? [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
::::@[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]], what point are you trying to make here? Are you arguing that we start [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|duking it out in this article]] over the merits of one vs two sets of notes? [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{re|Peter Isotalo}} [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:CIVIL]]. Try again? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 05:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
:::::{{re|Peter Isotalo}} [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:CIVIL]]. Try again? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 05:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::@[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]], it's an honest question so heed your own advice. I'm very frustrated by this situation and I'm honestly worried about pointless disruptions. |
::::::@[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]], it's an honest question so heed your own advice. I'm very frustrated by this situation and I'm honestly worried about pointless disruptions. |
||
::::::This is an article talkpage and we're trying to find solutions to issues relating to this article. Other than debating principles, what are you suggesting we do? [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 05:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
::::::This is an article talkpage and we're trying to find solutions to issues relating to this article. Other than debating principles, what are you suggesting we do? [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 05:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{cob}} |
|||
::::that's why i suggested an RFC :< |
::::that's why i suggested an RFC :< |
||
::::this way we don't have to fight over this, we can get a consensus, and hopefully spend our time on improving the site rather than getting frustrated with each other. Other editors may even agree that peter, having gotten it up to FA, should have the final say, or that his stewardship overrides any other stylistic argument, or perhaps to the contrary, agree with you that it doesn't. We shouldn't argue about consensus without first trying to make one. Imo this has reached an impasse, so either DRN or and RFC would probably be appropriate at this point to keep all our heads on. None of us are actively trying to make the article worse and we all want what's best for it. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
::::this way we don't have to fight over this, we can get a consensus, and hopefully spend our time on improving the site rather than getting frustrated with each other. Other editors may even agree that peter, having gotten it up to FA, should have the final say, or that his stewardship overrides any other stylistic argument, or perhaps to the contrary, agree with you that it doesn't. We shouldn't argue about consensus without first trying to make one. Imo this has reached an impasse, so either DRN or and RFC would probably be appropriate at this point to keep all our heads on. None of us are actively trying to make the article worse and we all want what's best for it. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:43, 19 February 2024
![]() | Vasa (ship) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"It" or "she"?
Make your mind up! --194.176.105.156 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see this was addressed two years ago (see above). I'll make the fix. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The archive discussion does not really follow MOS:SHIP in making clear that the originally established style should be followed. Looking at an [
very early version] early version[1] it seems to me that "she" is prominent in the usage (the first occurrence of "it" refers to the keel, the second to the word "warship", there is one "itself" that one could say should be "herself". This is up against three occurrences of "she" and five of "her".)
I appreciate that opening this can of worms will cause many groans from other editors, but the article still has a mix of styles. Someone else can do a full count if they wish, but it seems to me that "she/her" instances are slightly more predominant. Given the current mix and the article's origin with "she/her", surely it should be cleaned up to a "she/her" consistent version?
Any thoughts on this subject? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)- @Dweller: as not clear to me which way you made the fix. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- ThoughtIdRetired It was easy enough to find in the diffs: this is what I did. Note, my comment referenced this one, now archived. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Your edit did not survive long - see [2]. My read on the situation is that MOS:SHIP applies. I also note User:Peter Isotalo's comment that the usage at the point that this became a FA is relevant. Both that version and the early versions of this article (including before its present name) all prefer "she/her", though there is some mixed usage in later versions, including the current one. Hence I feel that editing to the female gendered usage is appropriate. Since I happen to have a relatively strong personal view on the matter, I am trying to do this correctly and give anyone who thinks otherwise to state their case. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- ThoughtIdRetired It was easy enough to find in the diffs: this is what I did. Note, my comment referenced this one, now archived. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ThoughtIdRetired, I would prefer we went with "it" regardless how we started it. Not an argument, just my two cents. Peter Isotalo 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- To balance User:Peter Isotalo's view, I have a real problem with "it" for a ship as I have to make a conscious effort to "change gear" to understand what the writer of an "it not she" piece is talking about. This disparity of opinion is well handled by the compromise MOS:SHIP, to which I subscribe, despite my strong personal preferences. What is clear is that the article contains both usages, which does not comply with the MOS – it is this mixed style that is the prime issue here. There seems to be a strong case to go back to consistently using "she/her" as per the early examples of the article. I would be interested to hear what correction User:Dweller (pinged, above) made. I could try and unravel that from the edit history, but having made the ping it seems to be impolite not to wait for an answer, as well any any thoughts from other editors.
- Incidentally, I have done a quick check that maritime archaeologists do still use "she/her" for a ship. (Wrecks can still be "it" alongside that usage, as they always have been.) I see Jonathan Adams[3] uses "she/her", as does Peter Marsden (editor of the report on Mary Rose) – and students working in this area are still obliged to understand "she/her" as is illustrated by [4][1] which uses "it" in the main text and "she/her" in the ample quotations from historical records. This straw-poll type analysis, of course, has little relevance to MOS:SHIP. I just wanted to be sure that I was not arguing for something that is no longer reflected in the real world. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, I'm invoking WP:FAOWN as primary author and insisting that whatever was the most common at the time of the FAC should be the standard. I honestly don't remember if it's "she" or "it" and I don't care as long as we put the kibosh on another she vs it debate.
- Whichever is used the most to refer to the ship in this version should be the standard. Peter Isotalo 14:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Quite easy to do an edit/find check on that version, which reveals the same mixed usage that is the subject of the original post, but with she/her clearly more common than it/its. I ran out of fingers to do an exact count, but it is pretty clear cut, with she/her being particularly prominent in the lead. I have to get to work now, but can put an exact count here later if you prefer. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just after posting the above – does your link correctly identify the article version that was granted FA status? There is no "old version" warning if you follow your link. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Quite easy to do an edit/find check on that version, which reveals the same mixed usage that is the subject of the original post, but with she/her clearly more common than it/its. I ran out of fingers to do an exact count, but it is pretty clear cut, with she/her being particularly prominent in the lead. I have to get to work now, but can put an exact count here later if you prefer. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dweller: as not clear to me which way you made the fix. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The archive discussion does not really follow MOS:SHIP in making clear that the originally established style should be followed. Looking at an [
Looking at the 23 Dec 2007 article version linked above, my count of the various usages is as follows:
"she" 21
"her, herself, etc." 26
"it, its, itself, etc." 13 plus 3 as quotations
So that is 47 female gendered and 13 neuter (plus 3 quotations in that category). Expressed as a single figure, that is 21.7% neuter.
Looking just at the lead (about as far as many encyclopedia users get) the numbers are 5, 5, 1. This gives 9.1% neuter.
Beyond expressing a little surprise that this got to FA status like that, the article is clearly weighted towards female pronouns at that point. In absence of any thinking to the contrary and taking into account other factors discussed above, this would indicate that changes should be made to consistently use female pronouns (except in the three quotations). I will leave this for a few days to see if anyone has anything else to add, then start making changes. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I made these changes today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Van Slyke, Andrew; Marano, Joshua (2 November 2023). "Hunting HMS Tyger , 1742: Identifying a Ship-of-the-Line in Dry Tortugas National Park". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology: 1–20. doi:10.1080/10572414.2023.2263793.
Referencing
As one of the older articles on Wikipedia, I think this article would benefit from some updating and improvement to its referencing. Problems fall under two headings.
Citation style
The article uses short form cites, but does not make use of any of the available templates (e.g. sfn). There is a significant advantage to the encyclopedia user in such a template, as it makes it a lot easier for the reader to see the full details of a reference. This is shown in this demonstration. I think the referencing for the article would be much more accessible to the reader if it were converted to the sfn template.
- I'm not a fan of the sfn template, but there are bigger problems as you outlined below. I'd suggest fixing those first before changing the cite format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Quality of individual citations
Some cites actually point to multiple sources. For instance, this[1] is found in the article. This has several problems:
It is not possible to question an individual source with a template.
All the sources of the article are not listed in the bibliography.
In this case, the credentials of the "historia" reference are not apparent as it does not have a citation style that allows the reader to fully understand who has published this paper. Is it a thesis or is it something published in a peer reviewed article?
Explanatory notes are muddled up with the references, for example[2]. The fact that there is additional information on Äpplet is an extra fact, not a reference. (It would also allow a link to the Swedish Wikipedia article on this subject.) This practice is problematical as a reader may be happy to skip the sourcing of the article, but would want to see additional information on the subject. In this case there should be a footnote which has its own integral reference. This issue is quite widespread in the article.
There are probably more citation-based issues, but I do not want to make this post too long. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- A single set of notes is a standard used in the vast majority of all English-language non-fiction works. They are per definition a place to add "additional information", regardless if it's a reference or some sort of comment. It's a standard that's been around for something like 200 years. I find the concept of separate commentary notes (with their own set of dinky reference notes) to a confusing "Wikipedianism". It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
- If you want to apply templates, this compatible with with both comments and multiple sources per note. I did this in galley not too long ago. So you can apply templates and still respect WP:CITEVAR.
- If any particular citation or note is off, just point them out and I'll try to address the issue. Peter Isotalo 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am a little puzzled by the above answer. I think we all understand that there are tried and tested referencing and footnote methods dating back to the time when a computer was a person, not an electronic device. We also know that Wikipedia referencing guidance is based on these older methods (they had to start somewhere) but has technological options that make use of the capabilities of the devices that display Wikipedia. In addition, the nature of this encyclopedia is such that elements of the "tried and tested" references (e.g.WP:IBID) are discouraged as they have problems in this environment.
- There are no firm rules on how notes and references should be handled, within the various options available. However, a key principle here is that Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers. I fail to see why an editor would want to restrict our notes and referencing to a system that mimics something designed for a paper-based system that worked with hand-set type on printing presses. (Anything to avoid having to proof-read an extra reference!) Deciding not to use the extra functionality available to the reader is a little like expecting everyone to have a rotary dial telephone in their home, a banking system that takes three days to make a payment, and a car with a magneto instead of an engine management system. We are not talking about
solutions to non-existent problems
, this is about doing things better because we can. Many users already expect to see this sort of functionality. Adhering to 200 year old methodologies is not a way of thinking that helps here – we should simply be looking for the best methods. If they happen to be old, all well and good. But it is surely surprising if techniques from a different era are still the best in a developed computer age. - Anyway, I will get off my soap box on this matter and wait to see if there are any other thoughts. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- You have only your own personal opinions to support your stance here.
- If you want to get rid of a certain standard of notes, argue that it should be made into a guideline. Please stop wasting time by campaigning in individual articles. Peter Isotalo 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
You have only your own personal opinions to support...
No, consider the opinions of the three other editors who have used {{efn}} to put explanatory notes in the article, plus the recommendations we see from Sturmvogel. This casts the concept ofpersonal opinions
in a different light. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes or somesuch. Second, copy all of the full-title cites to the bibliography and then reduce those citations to match the existing short title format. That should significantly reduce the current clutter without violating CITEVAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66, explanatory notes have no relevance to any "clutter". These are perfectly normal notes of the same type used in just about all forms of published works. I know of no other place except Wikipedia where people obsess about the idea of strict segregation of abbreviated references and any kind of explanations. Peter Isotalo 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I fear that the reference "clutter" may be the cause of a {{failed verification}} ([5]). I presume the problem here is a wrong page number or the wrong source being cited. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, but I find it easier to have explanatory notes broken out separately. It's not an imperative, but a "nice to have". The mixture of full and short-title cites, though, definitely needs to be straightened out as I outlined above. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sturm, I find it very annoying to read efn-style notes and then have to click an additional link to see the actual source. It's a very good example of a formatting that exists to be convenient for users at the expense of the reader. Peter Isotalo 18:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I understand and I'm not telling you to implement them over your objections. I am telling you that there are at least two cite styles in use and they need to be made consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sturm, I find it very annoying to read efn-style notes and then have to click an additional link to see the actual source. It's a very good example of a formatting that exists to be convenient for users at the expense of the reader. Peter Isotalo 18:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hocker in Cederlund (2006), pp. 36–39; see also Jan Glete's paper The Swedish fiscal-military state and its navy, 1521–1721 Archived 10 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Hocker in Cederlund (2006), p. 39; for more on Äpplet, see (in Swedish) Jan Glete, "Gustav II Adolfs Äpplet" in Marinarkeologisk tidskrift nr 4, 2002.
Fascine/sheaf
I have put a {{failed verification}} tag on the assertion that Vasa's name means a "fascine". The cited source specifically says "Interestingly, although the name of the ship was spelled Wasa (or Wase), the word for a sheaf of wheat, the symbol of the royal family from which the ship took its name, was commonly spelled vase". The word "fascine" does not appear anywhere on the page cited (page 15 of Vasa I, Cederlund 2006). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- See also "The new guns were richly decorated with the royal arms of Sweden with the Vasa wheatsheaf superimposed (just as on the middle panel of the ship's stern)..." on page 51 of Vasa I, Cederlund 2006. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cederlund is not an authority on the translation or definition of Swedish words. If you plan on questioning translations of Swedish words with multiple or complex meanings, you need to know how to use Swedish-language dictionaries. If not, ask Swedish-speakers for assistance before you go around and tag stuff you don't understand. Peter Isotalo 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am a little puzzled as to why you think Cederlund 2006 is not an RS on this. This book is the first of a definitive series on the ship and the author, editor and contributors have a good level of access to all appropriate levels of Swedish scholarship. Do you think they did not use this if there was any doubt, especially since the point is specifically addressed in the source? They also have the ship as evidence – see the article's picture of the recreated carvings of heraldry, the source's picture (9:7) of the castings of a wheat sheaf on the breech of a gun and other evidence of how the heraldry was presented. The iconography alone is a powerful bit of evidence. Then I did consult a Swedish speaker for assistance: User talk:SergeWoodzing#Translation issue. One could also look at the preciseness of the English word "sheaf" in this instance. The OED entry includes a meaning of a bundle of pretty much any plant material (even though a common usage is for a sheaf of wheat or other cereal). So a subset of sheaf is fascine, but fascine's meaning is generally taken to be just the bundle of sticks used in military engineering. So it appears that "sheaf" is actually in good alignment with the range of meanings in Swedish – not something that you always get with a translation.
- Over and above all the above discussion, do you have a source that translates 17th century Swedish into modern English? This is clearly something that Fred Hocker has covered, with the note on pg 14 of Vasa II, which though it is largely directed at placenames and ship names, makes clear that European languages did not have standardised spelling at that time. At present, I am relaxed that the correct term for the article is a sheaf of wheat, rather than a fascine. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- See also [6]. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- You've been provided a solid source in this regard. The horse is dead so stop beating it already. Peter Isotalo 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- The source given appears to support the idea that the name is derived from the heraldry and refers to a wheatsheaf. Look at the dictionary definition 1(a) which specifically refers to the heraldic depiction of a sheaf (sädeskärve). This is why I have sought a further opinion on this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- You've been provided a solid source in this regard. The horse is dead so stop beating it already. Peter Isotalo 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cederlund is not an authority on the translation or definition of Swedish words. If you plan on questioning translations of Swedish words with multiple or complex meanings, you need to know how to use Swedish-language dictionaries. If not, ask Swedish-speakers for assistance before you go around and tag stuff you don't understand. Peter Isotalo 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced concept
Vasa was built during a time of transition in naval tactics, from an era when boarding was still one of the primary ways of fighting enemy ships to an era of the strictly organized ship-of-the-line and a focus on victory through superior gunnery.....
This rather glosses over the long period in which naval tactics were changing from boarding to gunnery. Pretty much the same statement could be made for Mary Rose (or for a Swedish example, the Swan, sunk 1524). Tactics were still in a state of transition in 1650 – for example, see War at Sea in the Age of Sail 1650-1850, Andrew Lambert, pg 41: "In 1650 the leading naval power, the Dutch, favoured a close range melee action, but by 1672 the line of battle had been established...". The line of battle required further refinement, with the development of signalling among the essential developments.
As an unreferenced piece of text, this content has to be questioned, especially in the context of what other naval historians say on the matter. At a minimum, the article currently does not provide sufficient periodisation of the transition from boarding to bombardment and is overly simplistic. The reference on which this part of the article is based would be helpful. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The paragraph you're quoting is cited. Why are you describing it as "unreferenced"? Peter Isotalo 01:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Because the concept quoted here (in the green highlight) in this talk page section is not mentioned at all on the page that is given in the reference. To be clear, page 49 of Cederlund (2006), starts with the weight of broadside, making comparisons with HMS Victory and USS Constitution. Then it discusses the "motley collection of guns" that prior warships tended to have, followed by production problems. Then there is a new section that discusses the classification of different types of guns, then goes back to the need for standardisation of the grades of powder required and the cannon balls fired. The next page continues on these themes of standardisation and then moves on to the actual specification of the guns in an inventory and as found in the wreck. There is no mention at all of naval tactics in this part of the cited work. I presume that you do not have a copy of Cederlund (2006) available to make this check. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Informational footnotes
The position in this article as at 30/12/23[7] was that there were three instances of {{efn}} being used. Each had been added by a different editor. An additional usage of {{efn}} was added on 10/1/24 with this edit[8]. That makes four different editors who have used this template in this article. To this is added the opinion of User:Sturmvogel 66, which is supportive of separate informational notes (as required by the efn template). In the spirit of actions speak louder than words, I take this as five editors who think this style is helpful to the article – four edits and one talk page opinion. Against this, we have, as far as I can tell, just one editor who thinks this article should not use separate informational notes and who consequently repeatedly removes {{efn}} and its associated separate notes section, most recently with[9]. This is in the context of the above discussion on the subject remaining open.
Is there any reason why the use of {{efn}} by four different editors and the remarks of Sturmvogel cannot be taken as a consensus that this template and the resulting separate notes section is desirable? This is an attempt to close this matter off so that the various article content issues can be dealt with. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article was promoted to FA with the regular one set of notes.[10] It consistently used normal notes until this edit changed the note in the lead and split the sections.[11] They left a whole bunch of notes with comments as they were, and so have you.
- I have no idea who the "five editors" are. You're pulling that one out of your ass as far as I can tell. You're reading your own views into what Sturm has noted here. And it really doesn't matter because there already was an established standard. You're just ignoring guidelines like WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN because they don't support your preferred outcome.
- You also have a history of doing this since you tried the exact same thing regarding notes in galley.[12] And you followed it up with a very unfriendly campaign about article length. Overall, you seem to be pushing similar issues over and over which is very much a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Peter Isotalo 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The record of editors using {{efn}} is in the article edit history – it is there for anyone to see for themselves. One of the additions of this template was by a highly experienced editor as a "cleanup". I presume that you are getting so angry about this is that you didn't notice when it happened. The initial input from Sturmvogel was
The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes...
. Do you really need everything spelt out to you (and this isn't the first time – seeThe paragraph you're quoting is cited. Why are you describing it as "unreferenced"?
which needed further explanation)? In the meantime, I am trying to improve the article with updated content. I very much doubt that the article would meet FA standards as it stands – not least because it needs updating. At the very least it does not have a stable form because you go in and change everything that any other editor does. It would be really nice to be able to work on this article in a co-operative manner. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)- I've requested a third opinion on this matter. Peter Isotalo 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- To expand on this point, the developing section of the article on the Sailing rig requires explanation of some of the terms and concepts used. These will be understood by some readers, so much of that explanatory material would be well placed in footnotes. Collecting those footnotes into one section of the article would assist the reader who needs to refer back to a definition/explanation. Having these interspersed with references might be less helpful for the reader. At present I am staying away from putting any potential footnote material in a footnote of any form. The sort of effect looked for is as in Cefnllys Castle#Notes, note 2 – though depending on how writing the sails and rigging section goes, there might be a good number of explanatory notes needed here. To be clear, the potential footnotes for the Sailing rig section will all need to be clearly referenced, which may be problematical if the footnotes are not in a format that readily accepts references. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The initially obvious resource of using links to appropriate Wikipedia articles instead of footnotes does not work well here as there are substantial differences between 17th century rig and rigging and any Wikipedia article that may focus more on 19th century arrangements (that is one of the key points of study of Vasa's rig). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've requested a third opinion on this matter. Peter Isotalo 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The record of editors using {{efn}} is in the article edit history – it is there for anyone to see for themselves. One of the additions of this template was by a highly experienced editor as a "cleanup". I presume that you are getting so angry about this is that you didn't notice when it happened. The initial input from Sturmvogel was
There seems to be a little bit of back and forth here, so, lets start over with both of your arguments stated so I can get a clean slate of the two positions. Please try to avoid mentioning the other editor per se in your viewpoint. :)
Third opinion
DarmaniLink (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
- Viewpoint by ThoughtIdRetired
On 30th December I suggested on the talk page that the article could do with some updating of the references. This was rebuffed by user:Peter Isotalo, who did not seem to have any argument beyond "I don't like it". Whilst it seemed that modernising the ref style was going to get nowhere, the article already had a separate notes section, with notes generated using {{efn}} (3 instances from 3 different editors). Consequently, when I edited this article on 10 Jan 24 with [13], I also used {{efn}}. The article content that was added was outside the flow of the article, but is relevant information to the article – so a footnote is a useful way of achieving this. This was reverted with on 13 Jan[14] with an edit that removed usage of {{efn}} by all four editors who had used it. This seemed at the time to go against the idea of consensus – with four editors thinking the template was beneficial to the article and one thinking the opposite.
I was then engaged sorting out a long-standing unresolved point raised on the talk page: Talk:Vasa (ship)#"It" or "she"?. I came back to the point about use of {{efn}} with this edit[15] which had an edit summary that I genuinely believed made the idea of consensus clear. On 3 Feb, user:Sturmvogel 66 joined the talk page discussion with The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes...
.
Since the edit summary on consensus had been ignored, I raised the talk page post immediately above.
Why does this matter? Normally one would just walk away. However this article is due a substantial update due to the recent release of a new source with new material. Some of that is on the Sailing rig of the ship. Many terms will need to be explained. The ideal method for this is with footnotes, so that a reader who understands the terms can keep reading the article. A separate footnote section allows the reader to remind themself of the meaning of a term by referring back to the note if necessary. The sort of informational footnote that is considered is something like Cefnllys Castle#Notes, especially note 2. The initial idea that Wikilinks would solve the problem does not work as there are substantial differences between the detail of 17th century square rig and the more familiar (and available on Wikipedia) 19th century version. The content of each footnote would need to be referenced and this is difficult to achieve properly outside one of the templates. Explaining why this technical problem exists is one for others, but in short you have to use something like (the deprecated) parenthetical referencing if you create a footnote with the ref.../ref method.
In short,(a) the impending article content really needs a separate footnote section to assist the reader ("article content specific") and (b) in the spirit of actions speak louder than words, we have a consensus of four editors who have used separate footnotes, plus one talk page commenter in favour versus just one objector.
In the meantime, I have fixed or highlighted several problems with the article (most recently a photo that looks worryingly like a copyright infringement) – arguments about the FA status of the article seem irrelevant when problems remain to be fixed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Viewpoint by Peter Isotalo
The article has used the standard of a single set of notes since it was promoted as FA back in 2008. Some users changed one or two instances of commentary notes to efn and added a heading for a second set of notes. This was not done consistently and was not discussed. I reverted back to the one-note standard recently per WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN. The one-set note standard is not exotic or strange in any way, but a perfectly acceptable ref standard, both on and off Wikipedia. I don't believe individual articles are the place for individual editors to duke it out regarding the merits of this or that citation style. We have a clearly worded WP:CITEVAR to spare the community from getting stuck in these kind of debates. Peter Isotalo 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Third opinion by DarmaniLink
Okay, so, it says in the policy that citation styles should not be changed without consensus, in which in attempting to get consensus discussing the merits of various styles would be required. if this boils down to which we think works better, it becomes a matter of taste, in which "not liking it" (or put more professionally, thinking it isn't an improvement) would be a valid objection, and per WP:STEWARDSHIP absolutely is a valid objection, and given the length of time Peter has been working on this article, he absolutely falls under.
It is true that this is a FA, and major changes should be done with care. While changes usually shouldn't always be discussed first, if you see changes that don't make it an improvement, you're free to revert/undo/delete them, and contest the edits as they stand, where they would then be discussed as beneficial or not beneficial. Basically, the discussions over changing citation styles shouldn't be shut down simply because it's an FA, and thinking changes aren't an improvement shouldn't be dismissed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree that bold changes to citation styles should likely not take place, especially in a FA/GA, but there's no harm in discussing to reach an agreement on how to change them.
We also shouldn't assume that other editors adding notes after the first one was added are part of the consensus either without pinging them first, and asking their opinion. They may have just added more notes because they already saw one, or may be swayed to agree with peter and agree with him on the notes.
I think this should go up to an RFC, where other editors can chime in whether or not to have the notes, and how best to organize the references to ultimately settle this, and uphold the status quo until it's done (per WP:STATUSQUO). Because this ultimately is a stylistic dispute, it's outside of my boundaries as 3O to ultimately decide. I would also recommend both of you make sandbox drafts (or provide diffs) of your preferred version for the RFC, to save people time. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Let me stop this right now
I hadn't realized that this is a FA until DarmaniLink mentioned it above. With Peter being one of the original nominators for the FAC, WP:FAOWN applies and he gets the deciding vote because it's his responsibility to maintain the article after it passes FAC. Just like I have to with my own FAs. I realize that this isn't spelled out in FAOWN, but read the whole policy at WP:OWN and I hope y'all will understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: the "deciding vote" language is quite wrong, not supported by WP:FAOWN, and the opposite of the intention behind WP:OWN in general. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The FA community would disagree with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- So what? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (though I disagree on your characterization of that community's position; you are confusing stewardship with ownership). VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The FA community would disagree with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unhelpful
|
---|
|
- that's why i suggested an RFC :<
- this way we don't have to fight over this, we can get a consensus, and hopefully spend our time on improving the site rather than getting frustrated with each other. Other editors may even agree that peter, having gotten it up to FA, should have the final say, or that his stewardship overrides any other stylistic argument, or perhaps to the contrary, agree with you that it doesn't. We shouldn't argue about consensus without first trying to make one. Imo this has reached an impasse, so either DRN or and RFC would probably be appropriate at this point to keep all our heads on. None of us are actively trying to make the article worse and we all want what's best for it. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @DarmaniLink, I don't believe an RfC is relevant here because it would go against the whole point of just leaving mostly subjective issues like formatting and spelling alone. In my view, it would be as pointless as having an RfC to rehash the issue of UK vs US English or "it" vs "she". My experience is that the community has long since decided to leave these matters alone and accept whatever standard that's been established as long it doesn't clash with more "objective" aspects, like WP:V or WP:NPOV.
- I appreciate your comments overall and think they're fair and neutral. It's only the RfC suggestion that I'm opposed to and that's purely for practical reasons. Peter Isotalo 08:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The issues raised aren't solely matters of taste; ThoughtIdRetired has expressed specific concerns that the existing cite style is insufficient to communicate the updated subject matter. That's a very different issue than the analogies of ENGVAR or ship pronouns you use. As near as I can tell ThoughtIdRetired concerns haven't been addressed in any depth beyond "that's not how we've done it thus far", which is a rather weak reasoning. CITEVAR says not to change styles for personal preference but that's not the reasoning being given. I'm unclear why you'd oppose a RfC to discuss since that's a pretty typical path forward. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've presented multiple arguments on this very talkpage here and here.
- I've also brought the issue up on Thought's talkpage here and even all the way back in July 2022 relating to "galley" here. Peter Isotalo 09:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- 2022 is a while ago and it's a different article. Suggest we focus on the here and now. Yes, I had seen those sections and they informed my characterization of the arguments to date. If I'm missing some nuance (which is entirely possible; they are long sections), would you be willing to link to a diff rather than the entire section? Can you explain why you feel a RfC would be undesirable? VQuakr (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- At the current state of affairs, there really isn't much more to say towards TIRs points other than "the steward, who got this article to FA, thinks your suggestions/edits in regards to the footnotes aren't an improvement" Generally FA stewards get to put their thumbs on the scale a little bit and frankly, I don't agree with the stuff about parenthetical referencing either, and found it a bit hyperbolic. It got to FA for a reason, and its up to them to maintain it. Even if I were to agree with one party and said "the entire citation style should be changed with to use explanatory footnotes", or "I don't think we should have footnotes in this article", that wouldn't change anything. 3O isn't binding. You would need strong consensus to override the steward, however he does not need that with you if he in good faith believes your edits aren't improvements, in which you would then need it yourself to override that.
- At this point, I'm pretty much insisting that an RFC be held, to end this dispute. That's my opinion. Let the community form a consensus, and we can all hopefully just move on regardless of the outcome. I really do not see any way forward from this point other than that. If anything, we should move forward with that. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might want to check out Thought's recent activities in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Separate section for explanatory notes. Do you still think an RfC is a good idea? Peter Isotalo 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The issues raised aren't solely matters of taste; ThoughtIdRetired has expressed specific concerns that the existing cite style is insufficient to communicate the updated subject matter. That's a very different issue than the analogies of ENGVAR or ship pronouns you use. As near as I can tell ThoughtIdRetired concerns haven't been addressed in any depth beyond "that's not how we've done it thus far", which is a rather weak reasoning. CITEVAR says not to change styles for personal preference but that's not the reasoning being given. I'm unclear why you'd oppose a RfC to discuss since that's a pretty typical path forward. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Copyright status of picture
I have asked for help about the copyright status of a photo in the article at [22]. Hopefully my fears are unfounded, but the link is here in case anyone wants to follow or contribute to the discussion at commons. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
sfn to harvnb
I am mystified by the sudden change of referencing from mostly {{sfn}} (15 instances) to entirely {{harvnb}} (21 instances); The latter template had not existed in the article until this wholesale conversion. The edit summary mentions "consistency", which seems odd.
I also make this comment in the context of {{sfn}} being much more common – 161,000 articles, versus 46,000 for {{harvnb}}. I have heard comment that the harv set of templates can have more technical problems, though am not in a position to confirm that. Certainly greater usage indicates greater accessibility for the range of editors who would be welcome in this article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's the same standard as in galley per the PR in July. It went through an FAC without any fuss. I'm also assuming that a template used in 46k articles is approved by the community.
- I started with the sfn because they were easier to replace. Feel free to help out if you want to improve the standardization! Peter Isotalo 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- You do realise that you are laying yourself open to an accusation of disruptive editing (WP:DIS) by making large changes to referencing whilst this and closely related matters are under discussion here? Furthermore, I am no expert on the differences between the different shortform referencing templates, but if appears that you have chosen the template that is problematical with separate notes. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets#A citation inside an explanatory footnote. That is highly relevant to the current discussion. I appreciate that I am probably the wrong person to be giving you this advice, but you need to hear it from someone. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out. Peter Isotalo 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- You do realise that you are laying yourself open to an accusation of disruptive editing (WP:DIS) by making large changes to referencing whilst this and closely related matters are under discussion here? Furthermore, I am no expert on the differences between the different shortform referencing templates, but if appears that you have chosen the template that is problematical with separate notes. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets#A citation inside an explanatory footnote. That is highly relevant to the current discussion. I appreciate that I am probably the wrong person to be giving you this advice, but you need to hear it from someone. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)