This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USC&GS Dailhache redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of USC&GS Dailhache was copied or moved into USS Olympic with this edit on 9 November 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There was no USC&GS named DAILHACHE. This vessel went to the Public Health Service as BAILHACHE, named for Dr. Preston Heath Bailhache (1835-1919). She was sold in 1934, becoming yacht MOBY DICK.
I know you won't correct this, but slavishly following an error laden publication like DANFS without correcting those errors doesn't lend you much credence as a reputable source. 2604:6000:6D42:4800:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the tip. How did you know no one would correct it? It took four years for me to stumble across your coment, but as soon as I did, I did some research and corrected the error. You are correct that some DANFS entries are of lower quality, and the Naval History and Heritage Command's efforts to upgrade DANFS is not yet complete, but there are no grounds for making a blanket condemnation of DANFS or its users, as DANFS nonetheless has a great deal of good information that can make excellent starting points for Wikipedia articles. In the future, you might try avoiding a judgmental or accusatory tone toward Wikipedia editors you do not know personally or their commitment to improving articles as new information becomes available. Wikipedia always is a work in progress, and suggestions for improvement are always welcome, but personal attacks are unnecessary — especially as a way of opening an article discussion. Mdnavman (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)mdnavmanReply
.jpg)
