Talk:Western Pipe and Steel Company

T.C. Colton Co. references

I repaired the defective link to T.C. Colton Company in the reference section. The same links in the footnotes section are also defective. I do not have the editing skills to repair them, otherwise I would have done so.Tjlynnjr (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Okay, thanks for the reminder. Colton moved his website some time ago. I will try to repair the broken links sometime soon. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

I have removed the boldfacing per WP:BOLDFACE, and clarified which President Roosevelt is meant - there were two of them, so "Roosevelt administration" is ambiguous. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I also removed unnecessary capitalization and apostrophes used to indicate plurals, and set up Wikipedia headings for the subsections. Ground Zero | t 03:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Roosevelt Administration

I have changed "the Roosevelt administration" to "Franklin D. Roosevelt" because "the Roosevelt Administration" is ambiguous. Up to this point in the article, no mention of which of the two Presidents Roosevelt was in office at this time. User:Gatoclass has reverted this change noting that "anyone with an interest in this topic will know which roosevelt administration, those that don't know can click the link". WP:NOT PAPERS says, in part:

"A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."

What is the merit of writing an article in a way to be unclear to a Wikipedia reader who is not up on American history? Wikipedia has an international audience, and a link from the main page that allows readers anywhere to select a "Random article". One of the amazing things about Wikipedia is that it allows readers to easily explore areas of knowledge outside of things with which they are already familiar.

Clarity is always better that ambiguity.Ground Zero | t 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You think "Roosevelt administration" is an "advanced term" that cannot be understood by a literate reader? I hardly think so. The section from which you quote concerns esoteric concepts pertaining to science, not general terms in common usage like "Roosevelt administration". Moreover, your edit leaves the impression that Franklin D. Roosevelt personally set up the Commission, a claim that is unsourced and highly unlikely to be accurate. In all likelihood, it was a number of people who were responsible for this proposal, and the work would almost certainly have been delegated - which is why the sentence refers to the administration and not to Roosevelt personally. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In common parlance, the actions of a government are often attributed to its leader. But I agree that it would be clearer to refer to his administration. So I hope that you can agree to "the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt", which clarifies that it was his governmnet, not just him, and that it wasn't the other President Roosevelt. There is a big difference between the "literate reader" and "the reader who knows which American president served during which era". Not all of our readers are Americans, and I would bet that there are some Americans who could not tell you which Roosevelt served in the 1930s/1940s. Ground Zero | t 17:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:AUDIENCE: Avoid using jargon wherever possible ... An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. An article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. For an article on, say, World War II, it might be appropriate to refer to the "administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt" because it's a general topic like "Baroque music". An article about about a minor WWII shipbuilder, however, is a specialized topic on par with the "Use of chromatic scales" example given above, so I think "Roosevelt administration" is fine here. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Franklin D. Roosevelt" isn't jargon, or a technical detail. It is the name of an American president. As there was another American president named Roosevelt, clarification is reasonable and warranted. Let's err on the side of clarity, for the benefit of a wider audience. I doubt that American history buffs would find "the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt" to be too plain language for their liking. I have proposed this as a compromise between your version and mine, and would appreciate you being willing to compromise from your position. Ground Zero | t 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a principle involved here: are we going to refer laboriously to "the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt" in every article about WWII, or is that just likely to irritate the readership? But since you have persisted with your proposal, I have requested further input from WP:MILHIST. Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think something on the lines of "Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration" isn't an unreasonable compromise. Although the link can be followed, it's generally good to be precise in the text where we can (my view has always been: why compel readers to leave your article?), and an extra dozen or so characters isn't excessive :) EyeSerene^talk 10:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I could have just written "the United States government" and left it at that. Referring to the administration by name was already introducing an extra level of precision. Giving the President's name in full in a context like this is like substituting "lead-acid battery" for "battery" in the sentence "They tried to start the car, but the battery was flat". It's just making the reader work harder to get the information he is looking for. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• If people are happy to compromise on "Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration", I'm happy to go along with that. However, this article isn't really about the administration - it's about the Western Pipe and Steel Company - and the exact choice of administration isn't particularly important to the flow of text in this article, so it should be OK to say "Roosevelt administration" with a link that readers can follow for more information. bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AUDIENCE, in the paragraph above the one cited by User:Gatoglass, states: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." It seems that Gatoclass has quoted WP:AUDIENCE out of context in support of his argument. I think WP:MOS supports clarity here. Although I don't think that referring to the president by name is making the reader work hard, I can also live with "US government" because, as Gatoclass notes, who led the government at that time is not particularly relevant. Ground Zero | t 12:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's a big difference between not providing enough context to make an article useful and being over-particular with largely irrelevant details. If it's not essential to making sense of the article to know who the US President was at the time, "US government" seems like a neat way of sidestepping round the issue. EyeSerene^talk 14:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion, I have made this change. I have also corrected the capitalization of "the Commission" to "the commission". In Wikipedia style, the generic word for an institution is not treated as a proper noun and is not capitalized. See Wikipedia:Capitals#Institutions, so "the Maritime Commission" but "the commission". Ground Zero | t 01:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)