Talk:Mare Island Naval Shipyard

New Mare Island photos

Hey all, I just uploaded my first photos to an article on WP. They are the night shots at the bottom of this article. Hope I did it correctly and that they are in an okay location. Please let me know if I should approach it in a better way. Almonroth (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice shots! Very atmospheric because of the darkness. Have you ever been inside the chapel to see the Tiffany stained glass windows?

In the article, the new images are too large. Typically, images are kept to 300 pixels wide if they are featured. At this time, yours are more like decoration than telling a part of the history. Have you considered putting more text in the captions, describing more of the history of what is being shown?

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Each image is supposed to help the reader understand the topic. Check out WP:Galleries within the larger guideline Wikipedia:Image use policy. Rather than including images with low encyclopedic value but high visual value, Wikipedia typically puts a link into the article, one that takes the reader to a relevant category at Wikimedia Commons: {{commons category|Mare Island Naval Shipyard}}. I will add this template to the article.

Here on this talk page we'll figure out if one or more of the images can be given a higher encyclopedic value by adding to the caption. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Binksternet. I haven't been in the chapel, had not seen the Tiffany glass. Must do that on my return. I took out one photo and reduced the size of the other two. Do you think leaving two in there is a good or bad idea? Feel free to remove another one if you like. I'll work on better captions. Almonroth (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking better with the changes. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The image captioned "Entrance to The Mare Island Naval Shipyard" is not an image of the entrance to Mare Island Naval Shipyard. It is an image of a disused bridge crane on the ways at the middle east side of the island. The entrance is before you cross that massive drawbridge that straddles the Mare Island Channel. That is where the Marine sentries were stationed. What is pictured is a work area well inside the yard. Lovely photo, but description is way off. I live in Vallejo, CA and visit the yard several times each week. Renglish (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My Stepfather Terry King was in the Navy from 1/41 to 1/47. He was on the U.S.S. Craven, a battleship that was part of the U.S.S. Enterprise fleet. They were on the Pacific Coast a week before Dec. 7, 1941. The Enterprise and her fleet showed up on December 8th. They had to help clean up the mess.

The Battleship U.S.S. Shaw had been blown up while it was in dry dock at Pearl. So, the Shaw was pulled from Pearl by the U.S.S. Craven that Terry was on, taking it to Mare Island, where a volunteer crew of repairmen, Terry one of them, repaired the Shaw. They got into Mare the end of February 1942. The U.S.S. Shaw was released for duty in August of 1942. Terry and my mother got Married on August 12, 1942, and he was shipped out with the Shaw August 15th, 1942.

Terry, the U.S.S. Craven, and the U.S.S. Enterprise and the rest of her fleet were not in the Pearl Harbor disaster. The U.S.S. Shaw that Terry went on in August 1942 was in a big battle of the Santa Cruz, October 25-27, 1942, the night I was born, helping in the mission of the United States Marines that were fighting to get and hold onto Guatal Canal.

It took 80 years for me to get Terry to tell his story of what he was doing during the war. This was only a part of it.

Terry was ashamed to tell this part: that all the Captains and higher ranking officers were takin the island women to little hide-aways and having lots of parties and everything else, while the scrubs (him) were fighting the wars.

I wonder how many babies were born to these officers that got left behind with no heritage of their real fathers. Is this the casualty of war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenskasandy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What does the above entry about Terry King have to do with Mare Island Naval Shipyard? Renglish (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

USS Tang

Am doing research on the Tang. The reference to the Tang in this article denotes that she sank 24 ships and finished second overall in kills in WWII. The article in Wiki on the Tang dentes 31 sinkings. Can anyone verify which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolwevl (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Supporting reverted edit

Hello,

I'm writing in support of a reverted edit to this article found here: [[1]]

I find that the edit was well-cited, while the revert was made with no accompanying rationale.

Thanks, Dana McFarland | Librarian (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)User:McFarlandDana

Hello, I was one of the editors that reverted the changes and additions made by Kelly walbran. I suggested they propose the changes on the talk page for discussion, but instead they just reverted their edit back in again. They were again reverted by Binksternet, but they again reverted their edit back in. I note they are a new account (with less the 20 edits at this point) and were likely not aware of the policy on edit warring). Binksternet has since posted a comment on Kelly walbran's user talk page, explaining why they reverted the edit. I have also posted there, but only to encourage them, (and anyone) to post comments regarding article content on the article talk page instead of in user space.

As for my revert, while I agree with Binksternet's reasons, my issue was not much about sourcing, but rather neutrality, as some of the additions were somewhat WP:POINTy, and Wikipedia is not a venue for activism. Content, written in Wikipedia's voice should be balanced and encyclopaedic. I'm not saying the content you're seeking to add doesn't belong at all, I just think there should be a discussion regarding some of the language and tone, as well as location (re: is this the right article for this?) That's why, as per WP:BRD, once the edit was reverted, instead of further reverts, there should've been a discussion here on this talk page. Per WP:ONUS, even if the added content is verfifed, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Sorry about the length, but there were several items to note. Also, as Kelly walbran is new here, I tried to be thorough. Though we might disagree, I, and I'm sure others as well, are certainly willing to help them as we work on sorting this out. - wolf 08:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Greatly appreciate the feedback as yes, I am new! I understand your points and would just gently push back on the idea that the text that I edited was previously neutral. The previous text claimed Native Americans were violent without reference, so it was my intention to provide reference to the fact that the ships that were dispatched were used to enact violence. It's not an activist stance, it's simply the history.--Kelly Black (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It appear the word "violence" remained after all the reverts. I see Binksternet has since addressed that to a more preferable word. That aside, I agree that an an encyclopaedia is largely a canon of history. But we still need to take care in how we present that history. - wolf 21:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)