This article 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 article 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
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@RaphaelQS: - see the above link; this has been established practice on Wikipedia forever. That you think a certain format looks better, or sounds better, or whatever, is fine, but you can't go around forcing other editors to follow your personal preferences. If you edit a page and nobody reverts it, that's one thing, but if someone does, do not try to force your way. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's not a matter of "citation style" much less "personal preference", it's a matter of using the right section titles. The sources section is titled "References", which is wrong, the word "references" refers to what is in the "Footnotes" section. This mess needs to be cleaned up asap. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
See WP:ASL, specifically the line "If an article contains a list of general references, this is usually placed in a separate section, titled (for example) "References". This usually comes immediately after the section(s) listing footnotes, if any. (If the general references section is called "References", then the citations section is usually called "Notes".) There's nothing that needs to be cleaned up, you are just wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, you're wrong. There is nothing in the section you just quoted that would support your point. Again this mess needs to be cleaned up, it's confusing the readers. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Read the green text again, specifically the bit in paretheses. It specifies exactly the format in this article.
Do me a favor: crack open any book you happen to have that uses endnotes, and tell me what the header is at the end of the chapter where they're listed. Is it something like "Endnotes" or "Notes"? Or is it "References", as you suggest we do here? Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's too bad so many of the photos are affected by a moiré pattern (probably the result of a digital scan of a halftone print). Is there any way to improve them? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'd think if one was skilled with photoshop, the images could be repaired, but that's not anything I have experience with, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
