This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lists of ships 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 |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled edit
Is there a list of just Ironclad ships used in the Civil War?
What is the significance of the use of italics in the article? -Arb. 15:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Referring to ships, we italicize the name of a ship (but not its prefix or designation). Maralia 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference. There is some interesting and useful information there. And Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Capital_letters_or_italics.3F explains the why and wherefore. -Arb. 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- you are a piece of donkey shit 151.111.138.54 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Deletion review outcome edit
I knew this would get complex. There was a deletion review on this. I am searching for it and will put the link here shortly.
In the meantime I have removed the speedy deletion flag. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's here, sorry about the G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- You beat me to it! Understandable. I wish that "something" had been done instead of "nothing". I knew this would happen Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) I was the original nominator of this at AfD. During the process the article was completely rewritten. Any consensus that obtained before that rewrite became irrelevant because of the rewrite. Because of the rewrite I withdrew my nomination (by no means expecting this to close the discussion early - one editor one opinion). The fact of the massive rewrite was flagged, and I believed a new consensus had formed in favour of keeping the article. It appears to me, despite the closer giving a rationale on his/her own talk page when challenged, that this was an improperly read consensus and that the deletion should be overturned. The closer has suggested that this be taken to Deletion Review, so I see no further need to negotiate with them. If it is then felt essential a procedural AfD should be undertaken to find a true consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I bet someone speedies it again, though :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added these hidden comments to the top of the article. This will be the first thing one sees after hitting "edit"...
<!-- Please do not tag this article with db-afd. --> <!-- Please review "Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 26" for the reason why -->
--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed hidden comments. It's been a month since the AFD so they shouldn't be needed anymore. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)