Wikipedia

Talk:Irish maritime events during World War II

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Ferret in topic (Re)Movement of table
Learn more about this page

new sections

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've sub-divided the 1943/44/45 section into separate years; it makes more sense to have a section for each year.
And the decline in losses is easier to see this way. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Irish maritime events during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish maritime events during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Irish maritime events during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Re)Movement of table

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The Banner: Firstly: A reminder that WP:BOLD remains policy. No one is required to discuss removal of content preemptively as you appear to believe.

Secondly, "slashing of page": The "compromise" edit (and in fact the edit I made first) removes nothing on this page, it simply moves the content to the bottom where it can also be displayed in a more appropriate format for readers. You are more than welcome to move the section to a different place on the page. It is regardless inappropriate for the tables to be collapsed per WP:COLLAPSE, so I do not think you want such a table to be at the top right of the page.

Thirdly: The less-compromise of an edit already preserves the content at Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II#Ships, where it is vastly more appropriate anyway since an article on the events of WW2 regarding the IMM is fundamentally not a place you need to put a list of ships. But if you want to duplicate the content, that's on you, I guess.

The basic premise of the edit at all is removing "infobox bordered" per MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#description. At some point the styles for that table will be removed and then this page will not look good.

Please let me know which of the above paths you would like to take. IznoPublic (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Instead of seeking the edit war, you could have tried to discuss the slashing it first. There was no attempt of finding a compromise, as there was no discussion at all. The path I like to follow is named: discuss it on the talk page first. The Banner talk 17:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Banner So what is your objection to the edit(s) at this point? At least one of them has 0 slashing. We are on the talk page and you have not provided a substantive issue with that edit, so I am inclined to reinstate it.
As for the work I am doing, I have thousands of pages to fix. I am not going to provide an explanation on the talk page for every single one. That amounts to spam in the large and it significantly slows down the effort in question. WP:BOLD remains policy. IznoPublic (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Consensus is also a policy. And the point is that you did remove 10% of a fairly large article while refusing to seek consensus. The Banner talk 19:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Banner Moving on, since I have already asked: what is your objection to the edit(s) at this point? At least one of them has 0 slashing. We are on the talk page and you have not provided a substantive issue with that edit, so I am inclined to reinstate it. IznoPublic (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Your lack of seeking consensus or meaningful discussion. I suggest that you switch your attitude and come up with a proper proposal about how to improve the article, including an explanation about what is wrong now. The Banner talk 19:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Banner, I explained my edit in the first comment. Please respond to the substance of that comment. I explained what was wrong, why I made the edit, and the two separate suggested changes ([1][2]) are in the article history for you to review. Please do so. IznoPublic (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Disclosure, here as a talk watcher of Izno's user talk page, where I saw a notice left. Seems like the content has been reverted on basic grounds of "undiscussed removals" and byte count, but no one has yet to actually reply to Izno's reasoning at the start of this section stating exactly what he was doing and why. On those two points:
  1. Removing a set of data that already exists on a another parent topic page seems fine to me, as it can be linked to easily enough. This avoids duplicative maintenance of content, though I can understand someone wanting it here all the same.
  2. The second set of data seems to have never been removed, but converted from an infobox bordered class to a standard table, as part of the efforts to modernize and improve Common.css, per Izno's stated reason. As the content isn't actually removed, just reformatted, I don't see any reason to oppose. The content's formatting will break when Common.css gets updated. A seemingly large reduced byte count in an edit doesn't mean visible content was removed. It was a lot of unnecessary syntax/formatting.
Even if the removed set of duplicative data is kept here, it sounds like it would still need to be reformatted due to the Common.css changes. This will again result in a negative byte count, without any actual visible text loss. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_maritime_events_during_World_War_II&oldid=1207739462"