User talk:Lyndaship

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Skipjack class submarine

Hi, I wanted to get your opinion on something. Back in June 2023 Whoop Whoop Pull Up added a Why? template to this text.

Unlike the Skates, this new design was maximized for underwater speed by fully streamlining the hull like a blimp. This required a single screw aft of the rudders and stern planes. Adoption of a single screw was a matter of considerable debate and analysis within the Navy, as two shafts offered redundancy and improved maneuverability. The so-called "body-of-revolution hull" reduced her surface sea-keeping, but was essential for underwater performance.

IMO, "maximized for underwater speed" and "essential for underwater performance" answers the question Why?, unless we go into a major tangent of minute hydrodynamic theory. I want to just delete it. Your thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you but obviously the editor who added the why template felt it was not clear. Therefore you should ask them why they added it. I suspect the wording can be tweaked so it is obvious that changing the design of the sub to a single screw streamlined the hull and maximised underwater speed Lyndaship (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

References

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Just to say thanks for tidying up the mess left behind by the portal deletions. Such edits often go unappreciated but do make life easier for those who edit the articles in future. Certes (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated. Rather enjoying doing it! Lyndaship (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit by PrimeBOT. Leaving aside the issue of whether we should be editing old discussions, it looks as if we may have an automated way of unlinking discontinued portals. Certes (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I discovered this just after I had finished clearing Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals manually. Never mind it was an enjoyable week working out why they were in there and I learned about JWB and Regex through doing it. I agree about not changing old discussions point Lyndaship (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

JWB edits are leaving a stray vertical bar

Hi, I noticed your JWB edits are leaving a stray vertical bar behind: Special:Diff/1208184843. 85.76.13.79 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. They should all be resolved now Lyndaship (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Lyndaship!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Precision and tonnage

You may already know this, but it's pointless to add "|0" to a conversion that already has non-zero digits in the ones place. It doesn't change the precision in the conversion. Also it's a bit misleading to add an edit summary "more precise tonnage conversion" when you've changed the displacement conversion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I discovered this late in the day and ceased adding it enmasse. I still intend to continue to add it displacement tonnage when the tonnage ends in a zero as seeing 1000 long tons (1000 tonnes) is incorrect and confusing. I do not accept that my edit summary is misleading, displacement is a tonnage Lyndaship (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)