Talk:Philip Vian

Gazette search results

For Philip Louis Vian (should include most decorations). For Philip L. Vian should include promotions, plus some despatches. For Philip Vian more despatches, plus one Mention. This should hopefully cover most things, but the service history on the Admirals website also gives gazette dates, so if the searches are missing anything, that should help find them - unfortunately they haven't updated their links to the gazette's new format url which makes for a bit more work. David Underdown (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mini Peer-review

I was asked to give a few comments, so here goes:

• The WP:LEAD needs expanding so that it summarises the article.
• I would leave only the highest Order of the Bath in the infobox.
• No need to mention all incidents he was involved in during the War in the infobox, I suggest only the most relevant.
• Consistent dates per WP:MOSNUM. eg: May 1, 1945 in lead, 1 May 1945 in article text.
• Obviously the citation needed tags need to be dealt with.
• I suggest merging some of the short paragraphs and sentences in the Inter-War section.
• Same with WWII. I would suggest merging into time-periods to reduce the number of sections. Only have separate sections for eras that are specifically important to Vian. (eg Altmark, Mediterranean, Pacific)
• Subjective statements such as "He greatly preferred sea duties and took up the new appointment in March 1937." need specific citations. There is currently a lack of citations for this kind of statement within the article. The Gazette references are good for dates, appointments etc.
• Try and expand the post war section. Did he do anything else?
• An image would be good.

After that, I would be happy to look over it in view of a copyedit. It needs it in places as do most articles. Great work up till now, but it needs some work. A specific peer review with Milhist might help. If I can be any help, just let me know. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

These points have now been largely dealt with. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal and non-service life

This is difficult to find. Nothing much new in his Times obituary or in his memoirs. Anyone know any other sources? Folks at 137 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find anything: there is nothing in ODNB and nothing in Heathcote. Dormskirk (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hms-formidable-r67.jpg

The image Image:Hms-formidable-r67.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Judged that fair use doesn't apply (picture used to illustrate a passage of text & an alternative is available). Replaced by one said to be out of copyright. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source

The Collett Family History website is a published document on the Internet and therefore under Wikipedia rules should be accepted as a source. The relationship to CB Collett is both relevant and important in my view as is the Haig link. Ancestry both my own tree and others also confirms the relationship of 1c1r. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi - Please see WP:UGC; the Collett Family History website looks user-generated to me. Please also see WP:ANCESTRY which says "Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable". Dormskirk (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. A website classes as published material no different to a printed copy. It certainly isn't AI lol. Everything human-kind has ever achieved in based on research and publication. It is reliable.. besides I care as a removed cousin to both that I bet you are not.! H Saltmarsh781 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough if you disagree with the policy, but the policy remains extant until it is amended. I confirm that I am not related to the subject. If you are, then please read the requirements in WP:COI. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to argue all I'm saying is that if Mr Collett had published it as a book (impractical) then it would be accepted as a source 100%. A website count as publishing. I'm not going to waste my time trying to correct errors or add information to Wikipedia if it is always such an uphill struggle. Maybe this is why Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source by some people. This is not the first time I have had this sort of issue. I tried to communicate that Calcroft Peerage as an individual source was not as reliable as some others but it wasn't until other editors also accepted that the necessary changes we made on another page. Besides there is no evidence contrary to Mr Collett's website unlike Calcroft.! Saltmarsh781 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Again fair enough. I am not arguing with you either. Dormskirk (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay is there a third party who could adjudicate whether a website is a reliable source for Wikipedia and what classifies as publication to be used as a source. I don't know what role you have so I think an appeal is reasonable and at the very least wording needs to be clarified. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to go to Wikipedia:Village pump. You may be able to get further guidance (beyond the policies stated) there. Dormskirk (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)