User talk:TomTheHand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
January 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – November 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 December 2007 – January 2007

Contents 1 Re: Edits to Template:Infobox Ship Career 2 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 3 Ship infobox 4 USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) 5 A question for you 6 A duty of disambiguation 7 Luftwaffe as a generic term 8 ship class template revamp 9 Commission/decommission fields 10 RfA thank-spam 11 Anchors for Constitution 12 Ship class template 13 a MK -> an MK 14 New infoboxes with AWB 15 SS 361-364 16 SS 361-364 17 Page move 18 Regex 19 Infobox code 20 DWT on MOSNUM 21 Ship infoboxes 22 Movie info on USS Pampanito 23 Tel Aviv 24 Y'know what'd have been clever... 25 TomTheHand, Template Guru 26 An admin task if you've time? 27 From Middim13: Abusing multiple accounts and evasion. 28 Bagel 29 Infobox creation 30 Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC Chapter 31 The United States Naval Institute and Naval Historian Norman Friedman. 32 Oil price graph 32.1 Nominal vs Real 33 MW conversions 34 Jeffery Rodengen and his book published as: The Legend of Electric Boat, Serving The Silent Service.

[edit] Re: Edits to Template:Infobox Ship Career

Sorry, but I thought those fields would be useful. --  Denelson83  22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship infobox

Hi there Tom, could you check that I have got all the key components of the Ship infobox protected and then check the post at WT:SHIPS to make sure I have done what was requested. Don't want to miss anything! Thanks. Woody (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)

Show me where the Navy lists her as a Kitty Hawk-class. Neovu79 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question for you

I have question regarding Japanese Navy ships of World War II. This is personal project of mine to make all articles of this class conform with standards of WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS. You say all Infoboxes should have metric measurement first followed by English measurement. But some destroyer Infoboxes refer to hidden table of armaments for destroyer class. See example Ushio. Hidden tables do not conform to your standards. They list English measurements first. How do I change them? Shibumi2 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The hidden tables are in the Template namespace. You can find them by preceding the page name with "Template:". For example, to reach the displacement template, go to Template:Fubuki class destroyer displacement, and to reach the propulsion template, go to Template:Fubuki class destroyer propulsion. Please let me know if this isn't clear and I'll try to explain it better. Good luck! TomTheHand (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tom. I changed templates for Fubuki-class. Please review my work. Also I wrote answer to your question about metric measurement of speed on my page. These are ships used in World War II. For that period metric units (km/h) appear first on books and ship blueprints published in Japan. Earlier books and diagrams ~1920 used traditional Japanese units of measurement first. I will continue my work on Japanese Navy ships articles as my schedule will allow. I am very grateful for your help. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A duty of disambiguation

Hi Tom,

I just posted a message on MOSNUM that you may wish to comment on, as I quoted you on the use of 'ton' in ships articles. I hope I got my facts right, but please feel to correct me. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented. I like your proposal, and I think it'll be a good addition to the MoS with a few examples of how it applies to various situations. I posted one situation where I think your suggestion looks awkward, and I welcome your input on how to clean it up. TomTheHand (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It does look awkward. I'll give it some thought. I should explain that I picked 'ton' as an example in the hope that it would be relatively uncontroversial, compared with (say) the megabyte. Do you mind if you attribute the quote to you? (at present I've left it anonymous) Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you attribute the quote to me. TomTheHand (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luftwaffe as a generic term

Tom, I noticed that you are involved in a discussion whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used in a generic way in German. I added some new and compelling (so I think) arguments to the discussion, you might be interested in. I would like to invite you to share your point of view and to facilitate the decision making. -> link. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ship class template revamp

I hadn't seen any activity with WT:SHIPS#Ship_class_template_-_merge? in a while, and was wondering what the status on that project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, totally forgot about it. I'll work on it more tomorrow. TomTheHand (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commission/decommission fields

I seem to recall that these fields are supposed to be duplicable so you can record more than one commission/decommission date for a ship, but when I tried on USS Menard (APA-201) it didn't work for some reason. Any chance you could fix the problem there so I can see what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The way it works is that you have to close the Infobox Ship Career template, and then open a new one with a hidden header. I've fixed the above page so you can see; if you have any questions, please let me know. The method is kind of confusing but it's the only way I could figure out to be able to repeat fields any number of times. It's the reason why the infobox is made up of separate templates: you can repeat them to really get it to look however you need. TomTheHand (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, thanks for the explanation :)

But I can't help thinking - is this really the best way to represent commissioning/decommissioning? Would it make more sense perhaps - with ships which have been commissioned/decommissioned more than once - to just list the periods of commission under the commission heading?

So for example you'd have something like:

Commissioned: 1/5/44-20/7/46; 12/6/50-10/8/55.

Or maybe:

Commissioned:

1 May 44 - 20 Jul 46

12 Jun 50 - 10 Aug 55.

It would certainly be a lot more concise, and a lot less clumsy IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, and something that we should bring up on WP:SHIPS. I'll make the post. TomTheHand (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank-spam

[edit] Anchors for Constitution

I left a note @ Template_talk:Infobox_Ship_Begin/doc#Adding_anchors and was wondering if you might have an answer on this issue? Thanks --Brad (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship class template

Hi Tom. Sorry to be such a holdout on the in commission/commission thing, but I thought it was important we get some feedback from established shippies before going ahead with the proposed change - after all, we do want to try and make sure we get it right, because the last thing we want is more deprecated ship infoboxes (although I think they tend to inevitably get outgrown with time). Anyhow, if no-one else responds to the thread in the next 24 hours or so, I'll concede on the point, since I obviously haven't managed to attract much support for my position to date.

Since our attention is currently on the new infobox though, I thought I might as well take a good look at it to make sure there aren't any other outstanding issues. Having checked it out, I was pleasantly suprised, you have obviously been listening to some of the points previously raised and quietly incorporated them without any fanfare, so I'm pretty happy with the way it's shaping up :)

I do have a couple of minor issues though in regards to the placement of the fields. For example, looking at this section:

Capacity:
Complement:
Crew:
Time to activate:
Troops:

The "Time to activate" field looks out of place there to me. Presumably "Capacity" refers to "Cargo capacity" and "Troops" refers to "Troop capacity", so wouldn't it be more logical to group those two together? Then you would have the following order:

Capacity:
Troops:
Complement:
Crew:

- Also, wouldn't the "Capacity" field be better off just called "Cargo" since that's what it apparently refers to? So you'd have:

Cargo:
Troops:
Complement:
Crew:

- what do you think?

Also, I'm thinking maybe the "Sail plan" field would be better off directly underneath the "Propulsion" field, so that for sailing ships you would end up with something like:

Propulsion: Sail
Sail plan: Square-rigged (or whatever)

Let me know what you think. BTW I'm really pleased to see that you've fixed the large text spacing for the photo caption, that was something that was really bugging me, so, well done :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposed field rearrangements are all good ideas, and I'll make the changes tomorrow. The "Capacity" field is used for passenger capacity as well as cargo capacity, so I don't think it should get renamed to "Cargo," and I've been fighting for a long time to avoid splitting "Capacity" into a bunch of different fields for passengers, cargo, oil, automobiles, etc ;-) If I had put more thought into it when the infobox was created, I might have tried removing the "Troops" field and seeing if troops could be included under capacity too. I'm pretty sure "Troops" was carried over unchanged from the old box. I feel like a single-purpose "Capacity" field can serve many different purposes, even simultaneously; something like this looks very clean and readable to me:

Capacity:

1,200 troops

15 tanks

5,000 tons of supplies

TomTheHand (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom I appreciate that. I'm looking forward to seeing those little tweaks turn up :)

I'm keeping a weather eye out for other little improvements that might be made. Here's one I just happened to notice - there doesn't seem to be a Ship identification field for the ship class infobox. I think the ID is useful here as well because while a class doesn't have an individual hull number, it can have a hull type such as a C3-P-Delta or a C2-S-B1 and so on. I've been putting these ID's into the "Notes" field up to now but that really isn't the ideal place for them, would you be interested in also adding an ID field to the class infobox? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I shifted the sail plan and troops fields yesterday. Sorry, I tend to be pretty slow about stuff like this. I don't think hull types should go in an ID field in the class template. The ID field of the career template is for callsigns and other kinds of ID numbers, but a hull type should really go in the type field of the characteristics template. TomTheHand (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a MK -> an MK

Hello! I noticed in this edit that you changed "a MK 14 Mod 3 warshot torpedo" to "an MK 14 Mod 3 warshot torpedo". MK is an abbreviation for "mark", and generally if the above phrase were being read out loud you'd say "mark" instead of "em-kay", so "a MK 14" is preferable. TomTheHand (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for letting me know. I've added it to my bot's exception list so it won't do that anymore. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New infoboxes with AWB

Tom, I noticed that when you are doing this, the notices on the talk page: {{newinfobox}} are not being removed. Can this be set in AWB to happen? -MBK₀₀₄ 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, not sure if I can automatically do that or not. I actually haven't been doing this in response to newinfobox templates, but rather as part of a long-term project to update all fleet boat articles. I'll keep an eye out for those templates and remove them in the future, manually if necessary. TomTheHand (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS 361-364

Please stop changing the article for USS Golet (SS-361) to state that she was a Balao class. Per the Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, "SS 361-364 were build to the Gato design because Manitowoc built to Electric Boat plans and Electric Boat's Balao class plans were not ready when these boats were begun." TomTheHand (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They may have been built to Gato plans, but they are not Gato boats. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting ships, an official Navy publication, lists them as Balao boats. I think the Navy knows best as to what class a ship belongs. ;-)

DANFS is not an absolutely reliable source. I have submitted corrections to them myself. Being built to Gato plans makes them Gato-class boats; that's what determines a ship's class. TomTheHand (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS 361-364

I apologize, and thank you for the correction. I now see the page in the Naval Register to which you refer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeFF (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hope to see you around on other ship articles. TomTheHand (talk)

[edit] Page move

Sorry. I know how to move a page, but I've never quite been sure what to do when the page you want to move the content to already exists. I figured probably the least invasive way to go about it was just to do a copy and paste, because it preserves the history of both pages if someone wants to check one or the other. However, it seems that is not the recommended method. And I've had a feeling the last couple of times I've done it that it might not be the ideal method.

I figure next time, I'll nominate the page for deletion that I want to move the content to, and then move the page over once it's been deleted, would that be the right way to go about it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Help:Moving a page, "If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, the creation of the redirect, then you can rename the page." You could have just used the move button to make the move. In the future, if the page has a history and can't be moved over, and it's non-controversial, you can let an admin know about it. If it's ship-related, you could post on the WP:SHIPS talk page and someone will probably take care of it quickly; otherwise you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves. That's probably a better way to go than nominating the target page for deletion, because it allows the histories to be merged and will probably get done more quickly than waiting for an AfD to close. TomTheHand (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see from your contribution history it took you quite a bit of work to fix the mistake! Once again, my apologies, I really should have made some inquiries before going ahead with the change, but I figured (wrongly, it seems) that a simple cut and paste could be easily reversed.

I'm afraid though that that is not the only article where I have used the cut-and-paste method. Now I'm not sure whether I should give you a list, as it will mean more work for you. Let me know if you want to fix them, and I'll put a list together. I don't think I've done too many, maybe half a dozen in total over the course of a few months. Gatoclass (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't a lot of work. It's just that it requires an admin to fix, and an admin doesn't always notice that it happened. I wouldn't have seen if I didn't have that page on my watchlist. If you could list the articles you've copied and pasted, I would like to fix them, and it won't take me too long. TomTheHand (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regex

Hi. As requested, I have dumped my AWB regex on a page at User:Lightmouse/javascript conversion. Cut out the first and last lines with the word 'source' in them.

I do not use a default.xml file because I do not know how. I use 'Tools', 'Make module'. It is a bit of a pain because I have to fiddle about each time I start AWB and I do not know how to save it. If a default.xml file would make life easier, I would be grateful if you could tell me how to do it.

Furthermore, I think some of the functions could be made part of AWB general fixes (for example fixing wrong date formats that break autoformatting). These are *very* common. I have made a suggestion at the relevant AWB page but I don't think it is attracting much attention.

I hope that helps. If I can be of any other assistance, just ask. Lightmouse (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I apologize for contacting you by e-mail; I did it so that you could easily attach the file to send back to me. I'll incorporate your regexes into my AWB so that I can start using them. TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Any comments or suggestions, let me know. Lightmouse (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox code

Tom, could you please tell me where I can find the code for infoboxes? I've been able to put up with the minor quibbles I have with the ship infoboxes up to now, but I just took a look at the Defunct Company Infobox and it's so ugly and lacking in fields that I feel something really has to be done about it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you edit Template:Infobox Company you'll see the code and be able to add or fix fields. If that's not what you meant, let me know! TomTheHand (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That *is* more or less what I meant, except I can't figure out how to edit it. I thought maybe I could just copy the data to my sandbox and start playing around, but all I get is an "edit protected" template there. Is there a string I can use, maybe, as a replacement for the "pp-template" function at the bottom, that will allow me to do this? Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What you'll need is two sandbox pages, essentially. On one, you'll copy the template code, and on the other, you'll transclude (use) the template. For example, I just copied the template code to User:Gatoclass/Template:Infobox Company, then I made another page, User:Gatoclass/Infobox Company Test, and used the infobox on it... but instead of {{Infobox Company}}, I typed {{User:Gatoclass/Template:Infobox Company}}. Now I can edit the infobox code on the first sandbox page, and see how it affects the infobox on the second. TomTheHand (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need anything else, let me know. For example, I could add a field, and then you could look at the diff to see how I did it. TomTheHand (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, after I went to bed, the penny dropped, and I realized I would probably have to do something like that. But you've now confirmed it for me - and given me a great head start!

Thanks very much Tom, I'll let you know how it goes :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah. I spent a couple of hours reformatting and playing around until I got a good arrangement and it was only near the end I noticed a bit of stray code was printing out at the top of the page. I couldn't track down where the text was coming from so I had to go and get a complete clean copy of the code and start over :(

Not only that, but I noticed that the Company Infobox has a "Dissolved" field that's been deprecated, and to find out why, I went back through the talk page and it turns out you are supposed to just use the "Type" field for a defunct company, ie Type Defunct (1946). And it turns out the "Defunct Company Infobox" page is just an experiment someone did, there's really no need for a dedicated "Defunct Company" infobox when you have a perfectly good "Company" infobox which is much better designed and more complete. So in that sense this project has been pretty much a complete waste of time.

On the plus side though, this has been a great learning experience for me and now I know how to fiddle with these infoboxes! So I'm pretty happy about that. Thanks very much for your help there :)

I still think the company infobox could use a few tweaks though, maybe one or two extra fields and a bit of rearrangement, so I might make some proposals at the template page when I've decided on the changes. Meanwhile, I will toss out that "Defunct Company" infobox I've been using for defunct companies and start using the standard infobox. And while I'm at it, I might propose the deletion of the "Defunct Company" infobox, because nobody should really be using it. Same probably goes for the "Co-operative" infobox and the "Non-profit" one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DWT on MOSNUM

Tom, this has appeared at WT:MOSNUM. I thought you might wish to comment. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up! I don't do a lot of work on merchant vessels, but I'll put some thought into it and comment. I think I should also post something over at WP:SHIPS. TomTheHand (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship infoboxes

Hi TomTheHand - as I used the template on Taiko (ship), I'd like to ask whether the template cannot be changed so that the name of the ship is a bit more prominent in the infobox. I am aware that a ship may have had many names over time - but still, either all or the most recent one (?) should stand out more, I think. Such as for example, being centred in the box and bild, instead being in the standard "Name: Taiko" format. Maybe in the field that says now "Career (Norway)" it could be added at the right-hand side in the same bold type. Would not need re-editing of the individual transclusions, as there is obviously already and individual name field that only needs to be edited within the main template. Ingolfson (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I really don't think it's necessary to make the name more prominent; the article title is "Taiko", so the ship's name is very obvious. I generally only populate the name field when the name has changed, to illustrate the various names of the ship. TomTheHand (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie info on USS Pampanito

I appreciate your letting me know what happened. I figured it was probably accidental since you seem to be very clear in your edit summaries, but it's nice to know. doncram (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way I have moved on to adding NRHP and NHL information to USCGC Ingham (WHEC-35), as I am marching through List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina. I would combine the ship infobox and the NRHP infobox, but the ship infobox there is not set up like the series of infoboxes within the current Pampanito article, so it's not immediately obvious how to do the combination. The Pampanito edit history is a bit confusing to follow, too. Would you mind doing the combo for Ingham, too, now that you have it figured out? I think sometimes keeping the infoboxes separate, may make sense for some long articles, but combining appears to be better in the Ingham article. Thanks, doncram (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ingham does need to be updated to the latest ship infobox, but it's one of about a gazillion articles that need that. I'm working through submarines now, but I'm sure Ingham will get updated by someone eventually. TomTheHand (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tel Aviv

Hi Tom, I replied to your latest comment. If I put 'is claimed' in front of the claims would that be ok because I know that these claims havent come out of nowhere, but am finding it really hard to find any concrete refs. When I come across them, then I'll add them. If you could confirm this, I have no issue changing them. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive changed the claim to to 'is claimed to have the'. Does this solve the issue? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Y'know what'd have been clever...

It occurred to me that you could write a template foo: template1 → template2. Then just scream through the list of occurrences of template1 with AWB and replace "template1" with "subst:foo". Oh well, maybe next time. :) Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, damn it, you're right. In fact, when Gatoclass asked here whether we could just replace {{Infobox Ship}} with a redirect to the new infobox, I thought to myself "No, but you could replace Infobox Ship with code that just calls the new infobox... that wouldn't accomplish anything, though." Your idea is just a little logical leap from that, though, and is awesome. Our "next time" might be implementing that to convert {{Infobox Ship Class}}. Only problem is that the new ship infobox doesn't contain all of the old fields... we put our heads together, looked at Infobox Ship Class, and tried to pare it down a lot. TomTheHand (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dagnabit ... now why didn't I think of that! It's a good idea, and would save a good deal of time off the update/conversion process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna try writing one of these for Woody to help him translate {{Infobox Military Submarine}}. I'm writing it here. Questions, comments, suggestions welcome. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brad mentioned an interest in getting rid of {{Infobox Ship Class}} and I started on a converter at User:Haus/9. There are remaining issues of undocumented fields and the non-1-1ness you mention above. If you feel like taking a swing at it, it would probably benefit from the attention. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TomTheHand, Template Guru

Tom, I consider you one of the WP:SHIPS template gurus, so I wanted to get your opinion. Maralia and I were discussing the need (here) for a template—along the lines of {{Ref Jane's}}, {{JamesAbstract}}—for when one wants/needs to cite DANFS. I hacked together a working version here (with a sandbox where I tried to use different permutations of all of the parameters). I want to make the documentation more explicit that this is not intended to replace {{DANFS}} (as well as making the documentation better in general). Also, I was thinking of something along the lines of naming it {{cite DANFS}}. I'd love your feedback on any aspect of it. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me! I think it's a good idea, and I agree that {{cite DANFS}} is a good name. If you need any technical help, please let me know. TomTheHand (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An admin task if you've time?

Hey ho Tom. Nothing particularly ship related in this instance, but since you've been kind enough to shunt articles about for me before I thought I'd ask. George E. T. Eyston has been moving about over a number of redirects, over the issue of it previously being titled Captain George E.T. Eyston. Several admins have had a go at moving it before to a title that drops the 'Captain' as per conventions, and the creator has now indicated that he doesn't mind it being changed to George Eyston, which would be the norm for such an article. The discussion is here by the way. ttfn, Benea (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! TomTheHand (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Middim13: Abusing multiple accounts and evasion.

Dear Mr. "Tomthehand":

Would you kindly realize that I am neither (purposely) abusing multiple accounts or trying to "evade" anyone for any reason. I don't seek any agenda on Wikipedia other than to set records straight and to tell truth regardless of its lack of political correctness. There are many selfish individuals in the "naval community" and the companies that supply them weapons who are arrogant, greedy and dishonest. These are the types of people that bring America down a most corrupt path. "They" also lack integrity and make up stories - as they conspire in silence to cover up other facts that brought them to where they are today. So I would appreciate it if you did not "go out of your way" to make it easier for "them" to distort history as they warp the truth and corrupt America. The truth is not (always) going to be what "they" would like "you" to hear... or what they want you to know... so I hope you are not one of "them". You have made the truth (regarding Frank Cable, Electric Boat, and other naval historic facts (such as America's first submarines) much more difficult for others to learn about... and openly access - as you have reverted perfectly "fair and balanced" information in the most biased and slanted way. A lot like how the "main stream" elite left-winged media behave in the United States. Please forgive me if I'm wrong about your character. Let's let the truth rule the day and stop censuring what is true in the name of Political Correctness or any other name for that matter. Thank You for you honest understanding when it simply comes to setting certain records straight... as many have distorted for their own agendas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.29.67.36 (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for disruption and repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and verifiability for one month, starting on 12 February 2008. On 14 February 2008 you edited anonymously from an IP address; this is called block evasion. I blocked that IP. On 9 March 2008 you edited from another IP address, evading your block yet again. I blocked that IP and reset the block for your account to 1 month, per Wikipedia's blocking policy, specifically the section on evasion. You created a new account, 1866.UL, on 10 March 2008, and edited from another IP address on 11 March 2008. I blocked those as well. You edited from an IP address again on 4 April 2008; I blocked the IP and reset the one-month block on your account. You returned today and edited from two separate IP addresses. I have blocked both of them.

To re-emphasize, editing while you are blocked is evasion. You are not entitled to edit Wikipedia while you are blocked. When your block expires, you can return to make constructive edits in line with Wikipedia's policies. If you attempt to edit while blocked, your block will be extended. If you return to make edits which violate policy, you will be blocked again. I am resetting your block back to a month. If you evade it again, I will extend it to three months. Do not edit Wikipedia until you are able to log on to your original "Middim13" account and find that your block has been lifted. TomTheHand (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom, if you have to extend this block again, I'd suggest that you bring it up at WP:AN, and possibly propose a community ban. This has gone on for long enough. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bagel

[edit] Infobox creation

Hi, I see you were involved in creating the ship infobox. Would you be interested in creating an infobox for windmills so that I could use it on individual windmill articles?Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mjroots! I don't have much knowledge about or interest in windmills, so you can have my skills but not my creativity ;-) That's probably an advantage to you, honestly, since I won't try to argue with you about how it should look. If you can tell me very specifically what you'd like it to look like, I would be happy to create it for you. At the very least I'd need to know the different sections you need, the fields you'd like in those sections, and the colors you'd like to use for section headers.

Also, the ship infobox is special (unique?) in that it's made up of several different templates which can be repeated as necessary. This is to handle the often-complicated histories of ships. Is there any need for that kind of capability in the windmill infobox? I wouldn't imagine so. I can create a single-template infobox easily if you don't need the capabilities that a multi-template box gives you.

If you have any questions, please let me know; otherwise, let me know the fields and I'll whip it up. TomTheHand (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC Chapter

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! However, I live in central North Carolina. I'm coming to next week's meetup, but it's quite a drive for me! TomTheHand (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The United States Naval Institute and Naval Historian Norman Friedman.

Hello "Mr. Hand",

Greetings. Hope your doing well on this Mother's Day. Thank you for finally lifting my temporary ban as an editor on WiKi. I'm not here to do any damage or harm to the system in place - and I plan on following "the rules" as they may apply to me. I will try to remember to "login" no matter which PC I maybe using, but in the past I have failed to login. Let me just say that I have attempted to contact Norman Friedman several times (3 attempts) regarding one of his books, I think it was called "U.S. Submarines through 1945". I sent him a massive amount of information on how America's first submarines were actually developed (and by whom?). I wanted to point out certain infomation that he may have "overlooked" in the section (of his book) concerning The Crescent Shipyard's role in their (the U.S. A-class submarines) development. No offense, but I feel as if this man is biased and disingenuous as his information is not (always) as accurrate as he would like people to believe. ("They" may claim that I'm an anti-Semite for making such statements... so be it, as the truth will not always be what they want to hear or "have us" believe. Though I am Not - and I'm not about to go into that subject anytime soon). Anyhow, this man never responded to the many overwhelming documents that I sent to his "office" at USNI. This is one of the reasons that true history gets distorted because of (the) actions of people such as his. I will tell you that if you want a more "fair and balanced" version of Naval History, begin to appreciate the works of another "Norman". Norman Polmar wrote me back right away when I brought "this" to his attention... the subject above. He told me that the information that I sent him was indeed important and that any future writing on "the subject" at hand will certainly be included in his books relating to the Holland period. He is honest, openminded, and willing to correct past distortions in an unbiased way. He is aware of the rife contention that was so prevalent during the time when the Electric Boat Company was "selling submarines" to who ever wanted them, enemies included - as long as it was profitable to people like Isaac Leopold Rice, Elihu B. Frost, and The Rothschilds etc. He knows of these men and their unscrupuless method of conducting business as Wall Street stock speculators. As a longtime editor and writer at The United States Naval Institute, Mr Polmar's works will "speak for themselves". He is America's true Naval Historian... not (the) others like Friedman, who I believe (in my opinion) have concealed aggendas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil price graph

Thanks for updating this image to 2007, but do you think you could add the 2008 data to show the most recent price jumps? It looks like your graph stops at $75. NJGW (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell my data is the average of all the year's prices. I have thought a little bit about how I can add a May 2008 data point, but haven't really decided how to make it mesh with the average of 2007, the average of 2006, etc. I'm also not quite sure how to handle the inflation calculations. TomTheHand (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tom, thanks for the graph! I have an idea about how you could add the May 2008 data point: like they did in this graph, with an astersik. Just an idea... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that could potentially work, but another issue is inflation - the graph is adjusted to average 2007 dollars. I have CPI data up to March 2008, so I could maybe adjust it all to March 2008 dollars and then use a March 2008 data point... but I think I'd rather keep that graph annual. I am working on an additional monthly graph that will cover various prices over a shorter term. I think it's ok for the 1861-2007 graph to be annual, if we have a high-quality, inflation-adjusted, monthly graph covering 1985-present or even 1999-present. TomTheHand (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right. Also, there might be a few more price jumps ahead, so lets just wait with the update until 2008 is over... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh, don't talk to me about further price jumps ;-) I'm hoping to crank out another graph this evening, but I'm still an SVG novice so it won't be quick or easy. After this one I think it'll be easier. The one I have in mind is the average monthly Brent spot price from May 1987 to April 2008 (the full range of data available from the EIA), both nominal and converted to April 2008 dollars using the seasonally-adjusted CPI-U. The EIA has tons and tons of data, so that's really just the tip of the iceberg of what can be done. TomTheHand (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Brent spot prices from May 1987 to April 2008 are here. TomTheHand (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominal vs Real

I think the colours are the wrong way around in the diagram. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... yes. Yes they are. Darn it! I'm on my way out the door, but I'll fix it as soon as I get back. Thanks for the heads-up! TomTheHand (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. Thanks again for letting me know. TomTheHand (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MW conversions

"MW" power figures are generally used for diesel / turbo electric powerplants and would not apply to early 20th century direct drive steam turbines.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying that you can't convert Dreadnought's length to meters, because the United Kingdom didn't use the metric system at the time. Please review Wikipedia's Manual of Style. TomTheHand (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A Mega Watt conversion factor (MW) is an incorrect statement that should not have been part of the article, the ship would have been powered by direct drive turbines which were coupled directly to the driveshafts, so if anything the power should be rated as SHP (Shaft Horse power).

The MW power rating on a vessel would only apply to when the turbines or diesel engines are used to generate electricity as the propellors would be driven by electric motors.

Metric / Imperial conversions are nothing to do with this dispute!

msa1701 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm sorry, you're incorrect. Both (shaft) horsepower and watts are units of power: they measure the exact same thing. They both have precise definitions (1 hp = 33,000 ft·lb_f/min, 1 W = 1 N·m/s), and so you can freely convert between the two. Watts are used to measure electrical power, but they can be used to measure any other kind of power as well. For example, in many nations, the power of automobile engines is given in kilowatts instead of horsepower. TomTheHand (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Now your talking about bhp (break horse power) and not shaft horse power, which again would not apply to the Dreadnought.

msa1701 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Both brake horsepower and shaft horsepower are types of mechanical horsepower and are defined as 33,000 ft·lb_f/min. The difference between them is the place they are measured: brake horsepower is measured at the output shaft of an engine without any loss-inducing accessories and is the figure usually used for automobiles. Shaft horsepower is measured at the propeller shaft, after any gearing if it exists (Dreadnought's turbines were direct-drive) and is usually used for ship turbine plants. Either way, they can be directly converted to watts. TomTheHand (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffery Rodengen and his book published as: The Legend of Electric Boat, Serving The Silent Service.

Dear Mr. Tomthehand,

Back in 1994, Rodengen published a book about Electric Boat with the help of the company's "vaulted archives" and other sources. He states, in this account, that he was the first (in nearly 100 years) to be granted "full access" to the company's documents and records in order to complete his project concerning Electric Boat's corporate history. At that time, I had brought some very significant information to his attention. He wrote back to me and was "impressed" with the amount of information that I supplied (to) him to the contrary. The information I gave him was "overwhelming" and (it) compelled him to send me a signed copy of his book (free of charge). In this book, he writes, and I quote: "Please Forgive Me For Not Including The Many Valuable Contributions That Your Great-Grandfather Made To The Early Success Of The Electric Boat Company". He then spoke with me over the phone and stated that indeed "this information" is important (concerning the company's history) and that if he ever "revises" his book - that he would most certainly include the information that I provided him. Well, he (recently) revised the book (w/the assistance of the Director of Communications at EB) in 2006, but (he) did not sincerely make (any of) the corrections to "fix" this story - as he stated he would. His version is just as biased as before - as he writes corporate history with a favorable slant making the company's history a "little more" polished and noble than in actually was. His account is helping the company to look less controversial than it actually was/is. But EB's ability to take refuge in very poor memories is evident in the company's documents and archives - remembering only what they want - stating only what they want us to know about them. Yet they are known to be "steeped in scandals" since the company was overrun by lawyers and financiers who practiced in chicanery and deception. Most (of them) with no shipbuilding skills or knowledge whatsoever. See: The Defender, The Story of General Dynamics, by Roger Franklin.