This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS North Carolina (BB-55) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | USS North Carolina (BB-55) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 24, 2021, and June 24, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does any one know why or how the USS North Carolina's rudder was damaged and required repair at pearl harbor on April 31 1944? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 06:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Will do this one.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
06:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:
That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Would it be worth it to add an honors and awards section to the quick facts and/or main article? Thanks. Pottathan ( talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@
Parsecboy: Hello agiain. As you know, I'm well aware of your opinion of ship awards, be it graphic representations ("ribbons farms" I believe as you them), or simple lists, or even mention of awards in the article prose, but why
remove this note of the ship's
battle stars from the infobox? While you're edit summary stated: "we don't need to clutter the box with every little detail
", a single three-word line is hardly "clutter". It doesn't make any appreciable change to the size or appearance of the infobox, but does provide some notable info that some readers may find useful, or may even be seeking. "Ship honors" is one of the
infobox parameters. Leaving all the other means of inclusion aside, doesn't this seem like a reasonable compromise? -
wolf
02:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Same for your garbage analogy; an empty fast food wrapper is garbage, which no one has a use for, whereas the cited content in that infobox edit does have a use. Perhaps not for you, but certainly for any number of other readers. That infobox parameter exists and was included because, wether you like it or not, other editors felt it was a worthwhile parameter. In this case, one 3-word line tells readers this ship meritoriously participated in 15 battles, (which is no small thing, considering Enterprise topped them all with only five more). And again, I'm only addressing that edit, not any other edits that include "junk", like "non-notable sponsors, meaningless cost figures (adjusted or not), and cute little flag icons". That is a non-argument. Just as your OSE/OSDE examples from other pages are non-arguments.
Like you, I'm actually in favour of leaner infoboxes, and stated as such on the Missouri tp. But in this case, with a complete lack of an awards section, no mention of battle stars to be found on the page, and no collective statement noting the number of battles she took part in evident anywhere in the article, this one edit addresses all of that, using an already established patameter, making it a worthwhile addition.
I acknowledge and respect the work you put into this project, and as with our other debates, (and without a consensus from other users), I will ultimately defer to you on this. But with that said, and not wanting to belabour this any further, I'll just ask once more; you don't find this edit, (and this edit alone), to be a reasonable compromise? - wolf 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS North Carolina (BB-55) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | USS North Carolina (BB-55) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 24, 2021, and June 24, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does any one know why or how the USS North Carolina's rudder was damaged and required repair at pearl harbor on April 31 1944? A 10 fireplane ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 06:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Will do this one.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
06:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:
That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Would it be worth it to add an honors and awards section to the quick facts and/or main article? Thanks. Pottathan ( talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@
Parsecboy: Hello agiain. As you know, I'm well aware of your opinion of ship awards, be it graphic representations ("ribbons farms" I believe as you them), or simple lists, or even mention of awards in the article prose, but why
remove this note of the ship's
battle stars from the infobox? While you're edit summary stated: "we don't need to clutter the box with every little detail
", a single three-word line is hardly "clutter". It doesn't make any appreciable change to the size or appearance of the infobox, but does provide some notable info that some readers may find useful, or may even be seeking. "Ship honors" is one of the
infobox parameters. Leaving all the other means of inclusion aside, doesn't this seem like a reasonable compromise? -
wolf
02:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Same for your garbage analogy; an empty fast food wrapper is garbage, which no one has a use for, whereas the cited content in that infobox edit does have a use. Perhaps not for you, but certainly for any number of other readers. That infobox parameter exists and was included because, wether you like it or not, other editors felt it was a worthwhile parameter. In this case, one 3-word line tells readers this ship meritoriously participated in 15 battles, (which is no small thing, considering Enterprise topped them all with only five more). And again, I'm only addressing that edit, not any other edits that include "junk", like "non-notable sponsors, meaningless cost figures (adjusted or not), and cute little flag icons". That is a non-argument. Just as your OSE/OSDE examples from other pages are non-arguments.
Like you, I'm actually in favour of leaner infoboxes, and stated as such on the Missouri tp. But in this case, with a complete lack of an awards section, no mention of battle stars to be found on the page, and no collective statement noting the number of battles she took part in evident anywhere in the article, this one edit addresses all of that, using an already established patameter, making it a worthwhile addition.
I acknowledge and respect the work you put into this project, and as with our other debates, (and without a consensus from other users), I will ultimately defer to you on this. But with that said, and not wanting to belabour this any further, I'll just ask once more; you don't find this edit, (and this edit alone), to be a reasonable compromise? - wolf 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)