Talk:Destroyer Squadron 2

General remarks

Other than adding section headers, this article is a cut-and-paste job from the history section of the official U.S. Navy web site for Destroyer Squadron 2. Since this is an active-duty U.S. Navy operational formation, including what destroyers are assigned to Destroyer Squadron 2 would be a logical addition to this article, as well as the fact that this squadon is assigned to Carrier Strike Group Twelve. Finally, the need to provide in-line citations has been flagged. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mate, I am getting increasingly annoyed with you trying to add bulletted lists to every article you come across. Have you taken a look at the Battleship Division Nine article lately? That's the nearest thing to a FA-standard USN article we have as a model, and neither that nor any other Featured Article displays epic numbers of bulleted lists - THE IDEA IS REFERENCED PARAGRAPHS OF TEXT !! I have been incredibly patient with you on the CSG articles, because you created them, but when you consider going beyond those articles, have a damned good look at what the ideal for this website is - featured articles, and what goes to make them up.

Secondly, please stop adding the line 'typically deploys to C5F and C7F' to every article. It simply understates the flexibility of Navy operational groupings, which go anywhere, including round the world, on order. To say that CCSG 15 for example 'deploys to C5F and C7F' when it's only tour was to C4F, or to say that CCSG 14 routinely 'deploys to C5F and C7F' when because it doesn't have a carrier, it doesn't deploy as a group at all, merely seems to make it appear that you don't *read* any of the material you copy out of Navy releases, you simply apply your idea of a standard article template everywhere. Take some time and think!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts- a bulleted list is not helpful in the lead, but it could be helpful towards the end. United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) is a fantastic article, but as a quick reference for what ships are in this currently-active division, a list at the bottom would be very helpful.

Having said that, may I suggest a compromise, which I think is superior to both your solutions? ;-) At the bottom of 'my' FA South American battleship class articles, I've included galleries like this (scroll past the first table). There's also one in the battleship division article (see "Significance"). Could something similar to these be added to the bottom of the division articles so that we have the functionality behind Marc's lists and the FA-likeness desired by Buckshot? Alternatively, if that's too many photos, you could just have representative photos of the different 'flights' of destroyers (See Arleigh Burke class destroyer#Ships in class) and list the individual ships in the caption.

Hopefully after this you two can work together and get some of these beasties to FA – together? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Theed17. However I'm a bit confused. I read WP:Galleries some years ago, which said the rule was that galleries of an article's subject were discouraged; pictures should be placed in-text at appropriate points. Galleries should be established on Commons instead. I've been removing galleries across Wikipedia far and wide in accordance with that rule. Knowing that, why are you creating them? I'm sure you have a good reason; why do you think we're at cross purposes?

As regarding lists of ships specifically, there was a comment on the PR for CSG 7, which suggested placing lists of units in the lead to make it crystal clear to the general reader what the essential stuff of the formation/unit was. Thus I've been placing them in the lead, not at the end. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We can always add content to the gallery captions to make them relevant enough to pass the guideline, though I think that a gallery of 'current ships in the squadron' (as opposed to historical) is enough to pass the guideline. Mostly I'd like to see a compromise here so we can move past this issue that's plagued both of you for far too long. It's preventing you from being able to work together and improve these articles, and I don't like it. :-)

I don't have a problem with listing them in the lead, although I wonder if the infobox is a better place(?, honestly don't know). I just think that the list arrangements you are arguing about (eg. Destroyer_Squadron_Seven#Assigned_units) would be more aesthetically pleasing to a reader and, hopefully, to you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a host of issues that have always prevented my and Marcd30319 from working harmoniously together. Without wishing to be nasty (again), Marcd30319 does not appear to believe the aim of this website is to get articles featured, has considerable disdain for WP:OWN, and seems to assume that the whole world understanding mind-bendingly complicated U.S. Navy procedures, terms, and practices. One small example: almost every time I try to use the word 'refit' to replace the word 'availability' to denote a ship not being available, but being high and dry in a dry-dock, I get reverted.

I have for over two years tried to 'translate' the awful, stultified, unendurable prose, thick with repetition of phrases over and over again - truly awful English - that the Navy uses into, that Marc repackages from press releases and news stories, material that's suitable for the generalists we are supposed to write for. I have over and over and over again tried various ways to make the articles that he repackages from the multitude of (very well referenced, I applaud him for) press releases and news stories into flowing, high-quality English that is worthy of an encyclopedia. But usually I don't get helped, I get reverted. I cannot even attempt a Peer Review without a request to get the PR cancelled !! That's crazy!! We're here to *improve* articles!! Not to mention the inherent POV problems that come with leaving the Navy's language almost unchanged, as if the whole world agreed with the U.S. Navy's view of things. That's why we have a special note about how to rephrase DANFS, and yet he initially complained that my wording was deviating from DANFS !! Ed, it's not just this small issue - I remain at my wits' end about a host of issues!! So if you have some suggestions for how to change this, that go beyond this particular small thing, I'm all ears... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's got to start somewhere, right? Why not here? :-) From the years of popping in and out of this debate, I am well aware that Marc could have some better prose (eg, so. many. acronyms. :-) ). What I'm hoping is for is that he can ease up on his prose/appearance desires to fit Wikipedia better and work with you, so his time-consuming referencing work can mesh with your WP and WP:MILHIST knowledge. I can try to help as a middle man, if you'd like. I'm no mediator, but I can do my best to try to smooth out these issues... although fair warning: there are times Marc will be right, and there are times Buckshot will be right. There will also be times both of you are wrong. I'll probably be rather blunt in pointing these out. If you can accept that, this has a chance of working. Thoughts, from both of you? (bedtime for me, 3am here...) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly that would be great. He does compile masses of well-referenced text. But as a first step, might it be possible for him to participate in discussions? Most of the time I get no response whatsoever. It would be great to talk about things, and get reasoned responses, rather than just reverts. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well. I've been in email contact with Marc. Without saying too much that I suspect he doesn't want public, he needs to take a break from WP and doesn't know how long it will be... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)