Talk:USS Dallas (SSN-700)/Archive 1

Archive 1

December 2005

The 'Houston' comment for the movie is entirely wrong. Removing line Monty2 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, misread Monty2 11:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In Fiction

Should it also be mentioned that the USS Dallas is in the computer game Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2? Douglasnicol (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, see WP:MILPOP -MBK₀₀₄ 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That section refers to "pop culture" but the article references fiction. I would say yes, definitely a legitimate use of the sub's name in a work of fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.191.192 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, MILPOP refers to both instances implicitly if not explicltly. Popular culture and in fiction are the same thing since fiction is in the popular nexus. A minor appearance/mention in a video game is not the same as being a main plot driver/location in a prominent book and movie. Continued attempts to list the appearance of Dallas in the above mentioned computer game will continued to be reverted and perpetrators will receive appropriate sanctions for continued attempts. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Commissioning Commanding Officer mentions

This is a common practice on Wikipedia for US Navy submarines. Examples -- among many -- include USS Permit and USS Los Angeles. Commissioning Commanding Officers are not considered to be "non-notable" crew.

--104.15.130.191 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Actaully, it's not. It was decided by consensus that ship articles should be about ships, not non-notable crew. "Not-notable", is not pejorative, notability in this instance means having their own BLP, or being part a particularly notable event in the ship's history (beyond just the commissioning, almost every commissioned ship has such an event). Please see WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS, and if you still feel strongly about it, then feel free to raise the issue at WT:SHIPS and seek a new consensus. Despite your claims, this is not a "common practice", just the opposite actually, and as non-notable crew are added to articles, they will continue to be removed (along with any that happen to have been missed before). - wolf 00:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you don't get to decide that a commissioning commanding officer isn't notable. MOST Navy ship articles state who that person is, so there's a consensus -- and history for you. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You are treating this as "you vs. me" and that's not what this is. At all. This is "you vs. the consensus of the community". You say "most navy ship articles". What is "most"? Do you have a percentage? Are we talking US Navy? Or all naval ships? The answer is: it doesn't matter. Because right now a WP:CONSENSUS has been established on this and that is what you need to concern yourself with. (And perhaps some policies such as this one and this one as well.) - wolf 04:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A local consensus was established at WT:SHIPS not to mention individuals by name unless they already had an article on Wikipedia or qualified for an article. However it also allows for discussion if an editor feels that an individuals name should be included. Could you explain why this person should be mentioned? I would point out that most USS articles are cut and paste from DANFS and not yet edited to Wikipedia standards so the inclusion of Commissioning Captains in those articles does not support a usually are argruement Lyndaship (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• You are now both at 3 reverts, which means that 104.15.130.191 currently "wins" the edit war, at least unless/until another, hitherto uninvolved, user reverts again. I would caution the IP against trying to build a case on the foundation of Thewolfchild's block log ("misbehaving again", "I see you have quite a block history...quite understandable." Deflecting actual relevant arguments with ad hominems is shitty rhetoric which impresses nobody. But I have no appetite for blocking either of you over this, so I've full-protected the article (which levels the playingfield beween the two of you) for 5 days. I suggest one or both you of two try to call in a WP:Third opinion, or possibly even start an WP:RfC, though you might have difficulty raising enough interest for the latter. It's not exactly a matter of life and death, after all, even though you two seem to feel passionately about it. Bishonen | tålk 05:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

This was discussed at length on the ships project page and a consensus established that non notable crew would not be included. As soon as the admin only edit restriction expires I will restore the edit to conform with this consensus. Lyndaship (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

When an admin protects an article because of edit warring, it's in order for people to discuss on talk and attempt to reach consensus. (A local consensus.) To respond by saying you'll simply wait out the protection and then resume edit warring (because of a generalized consensus discussion that you don't even link to so that I can evaluate its relevance) is not appropriate. If there's no constructive discussion here, the article may be protected for a longer period. Bishonen | tålk 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

Apologies. I assumed that when an uninvolved admin took such unusual action they would first look up the history especially as WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS has been mention in the exchange. Here are links to the relevant discussions [1] and [2]. After reviewing them as you have now stated that the length of your protection can be varied I hope you will feel it appropriate to remove it in toto and direct the dissenting IP to challenge the established consensus at WP:SHIPS or another suitable venue as the established consensus affects thousands of articles and not just this one Lyndaship (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The action is anything but unusual; edit warring is probably the most usual reason for full protection. I did look up WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS, and I'm not sure how you expected me, or expected the IP, to find a 2018 discussion from there. Thank you for supplying the link (the first link; your second link seems rather tenuously relevant). It's a long complicated discussion, without a close, so I need a little more time. Of course the protection length can be varied, it always can. Bishonen | tålk 14:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

Ok that's a fair point and I must bow to your greater experience. However, in every previous case I have seen when an IP is seeking to change an established text against an existing consensus and edit warring on it the intervening admin has chosen to only prevent IPs from editing enabling registered editors to revert the text to what it was before the IP started his disruption. I appreciate Wolf had reached 3 reversions but I had not had the opportunity to jump in and I would also point out another editor has similarly reverted this IPs edit on USS Permit (SSN-594) where he was similarly trying to strongarm his desired version. On your second point WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS had been mentioned many times to the IP but I accept it would be unfair to expect him to find the discussion which led to that guideline however if he clicked the link the rationale of the guideline is clear and again discussion is mentioned (per WP:BURDEN). I still believe that the version of the article which existed before the IPs addition should be the one shown until such time as he engages further here and again ask that the protection be reduced to only registered editors so I can implement that Lyndaship (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If an intervening admin uses semiprotection for a content dispute, they're doing it wrong. We're not supposed to favour accounts over IPs, but to ensure a level playing field, (as per my original note). Semiprotection is for IP vandalism, which is surely not what you claim is happening here, Lyndaship. (If it is, please check out WP:NOTVANDALISM.)

Anyway. I wish someone had closed the discussion you invoke, which would have saved me some time. But then I suppose potential closers also found it hard. Towards the end of that discussion, everybody seems exhausted with the tweaks that keep being offered. So I'm not so sure about the consensus; even though the discussion is long, there are actually rather few people involved, some of whom post copiously. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Thewolfchild.) And the arguments made are often complex, with quite a few people noting that context and sources matter. "Consensus on an individual basis", highly relevant here, is also mentioned, something that I noted you yourself, Lyndaship, agreed with: "as Parsecboy has said context and consensus is all". Oh well. I note also that what is now at WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS includes the sentence "If inclusion of any individual name is challenged, the matter should be addressed on the article talk page and any consensus determined there will supersede this guidance." OK, I suggest we wait at least a day or two, for a consensus here to possibly happen. Of course admins typically always protect the wrong version, but surely changing this wrong version isn't a matter of great urgency. It's not like it contains a disgraceful BLP violation or anything else that's really offensive to Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

Thank you for your comprehensive and informative reply. I accept your view to wait a few more days to see if there is any further discussion. Lyndaship (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As no one else has expressed a view and the editor who added this has not offered any further rationale other than his initial "of course they are notable" I intend to revert after a further short period. Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

People do not have to be notable to be mentioned in an article. The policies that governs their inclusion are WP:V and WP:WEIGHT, not WP:N. As the edit has a supporting reliable source, WP:V is satisfied. I think you will find that the burden of showing that the inclusion of an item would give it undue weight must rest on the person asserting that. They must therefore find a consensus to exclude it. I cannot see any such consensus to exclude the information on grounds of WP:WEIGHT, which requires "... that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I should caution you that removing properly sourced information that meets Wikipedia's policies, without a clear consensus on the article talkpage, is likely to be construed as disruptive editing. I should also draw your attention to Bishonen's warning above about waiting out the protection and then resuming edit warring. If you'd like an independent admin to evaluate the consensus here, I suggest that you raise a request at WP:AN rather than make that judgement yourself, otherwise there appears to be nothing stopping any other editor reaching a conclusion opposite to yours and re-igniting the edit war. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and warning. The page protection expired 14 days ago, Bishonen suggested on the 12 December that I wait a day or so before restoring the article to what it was before the other editor introduced the commanders details. I have now given notice that as there has been no further comment I intend to revert it. Given the foregoing I cannot accept that I can be deemed to be disruptive in any way. I did not dispute WP:V, I pointed out WP:ONUS which states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, WP:WEIGHT is about viewpoints not facts and WP:NOTEVERYTHING is also relevant. As you have raised the validity of the convention established by WP:SHIPS with regard to WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS I will post there to invite others to comment. Lyndaship (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: I have given notice that I would consider further actions in an edit war to be disruptive in the absence of a consensus here, whether you are willing to accept that or not.

I do not believe that any policy-based argument has been provided for the exclusion of the disputed information, particularly in contrast with the the acceptance of the ship's sponsor as due, and that question remains unaddressed. You cannot simply rely on WP:ONUS to exclude content without reason, as WP:STONEWALL makes clear.

I think it is very responsible to seek further input from interested editors to help establish a consensus. However, I should warn you about about the danger of infringing WP:CANVASS, so if you decide to inform one WikiProject, I would expect you to also inform the other, especially given the dangers described as "campaigning" and "vote-stacking". --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

WT:Ships

It could be argued that a consensus has been formed, just in the past 24 hrs, among at least three editors who disagree with this ip user (104.15.130.191), but it seems this issue has now gone beyond that. That said, this is the wrong location to have this discussion, as this isn't about just USS Dallas. This is about the addition of non-notable crew in ship articles, and in this case, specifically the "commissioning Commanding Officer (CO)" of US Navy ships. This ip user himself invoked the exact same issue at USS Permit (SSN-594); when I removed that non-notable "commissioning CO" (again noting "shipsnotcrews"), he also reverted me there, (but was again in turn reverted by BilCat).

As part of their multi-page spree of arguments, this ip user again invoked this exact same issue when he mentioned the (also non-notable) "commissioning CO" of USS Los Angeles (SSN-688), among apparently many more claimed identical instances of content. So clearly we need a central location to discuss this matter and seek a consensus (another consensus). I have noted "shipsnotcrews", which links to WP:Ships/guidance, at least a half-dozen times already; in edit summaries, on this talk page and this ip user's talk page. The point is that if they disagree with the consensus I was invoking, they should raise the matter at WT:Ships (which I also mentioned to this ip user multiple times). Regardless if Rexxs wants to claim that Project Ships "has no weight" or if Bishonen wants to now question the shipsnotcrews consensus (yes, while "looking at me"), that is the place to challenge it, not here. And if there is to be a discussion to further evaluate and modify shipsnotcrews, or even dismiss it, and perhaps establish a new consensus on guidance, that is the place to have it. - wolf 00:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not a matter of my assertion; it is a mater of fact that consensus formed at WT:SHIPS cannot be deemed to be binding on other editors. You can form a consensus on the advice you give on the WTSHIPS pages, but not on what happens in articles. WP:CONLOCAL is quite clear on the matter:

For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

It is a core principle of Wikipedia that articles may be freely edited by anyone, including IPs, and this article is not owned by WikiProject Ships. You may not impose your local consensus here. Either agree a consensus on this talkpage for this article, or open a well-advertised RFC on the general principle at a central venue. Until there is something with more status than an essay to use as a reason to oppose an edit, you're going to have to adduce a proper rationale for why the name of a commissioning CO is not a relevant piece of information in each article where the issue arises. It is certainly not clear to me that the person who swung the champagne bottle at the launch is worthy of a mention, while the first commanding officer is not. Please feel to explain why that should be. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you explaining the technical aspects of the local consensus. As SHIPSNOTCREWS states "If inclusion of any individual name is challenged, the matter should be addressed on the article talk page and any consensus determined there will supersede this guidance" I await the reasoning of the editor who wishes to include the name in this article per WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. As to your question I would quite happily omit the sponsor information but others feel that if an individual is wikipedia notable then it should be included Lyndaship (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: I think it's commendable that SHIPSNOTCREWS guides your project members to seek consensus for challenged edits on the article talk page, but I also feel it's a pity that Thewolfchild missed that part of the advice. By that, I mean that I don't see taking the stance that "this essay says not to make that edit" represents an effort to seek any form of consensus. The IP stated "common to have the commissioning CO mentioned for US submarines on Wikipedia" and gave the example of USS Permit (SSN-594) on TWC's talk page. TWC's response to that was not to engage in finding a consensus, but to remove the text from the example! I find that just the opposite of seeking consensus: as far as I'm concerned, SHIPSNOTCREWS is not a reason to removed sourced content. The only policy-based reasons are that the content is not relevant to the article or is WP:UNDUE in the article, or is a copyvio. I consider that removing sourced content without good reason to be disruptive editing and I'm willing to sanction editors who persist in that.

The IP has also stated that they consider Commander Donald R. Ferrier to be notable. We both know that they don't understand notable in the Wikipedia sense of deserving an article; but you don't have to be a genius to see that they mean "significant or important". Check that against SHIPSNOTCREWS. The IP editor wishing to add the content has given reasons and similar examples. The response they have received so far is no more than quoting a convention that members of WikiProject ships wouldn't have added that content. Frankly, that's not good enough. The IP is meeting ONUS, but I fear that the responses to them are moving into WP:STONEWALL territory.

As for the idea that only individuals who are independently notable should be mentioned in articles, I'd like to know what policy or guideline that is based on. If that were the case, you'd certainly have to look at USS Permit (SSN-594) where BilCat removed "with Lieutenant Commander Robert H. Blount in command" with the edit summary: non-notable.person per WP:LISTPEOPLE – LISTPEOPLE is a completely unrelated piece of guidance. Not only that but he left "sponsored by Mrs. John A. McCone" in the same sentence. How is Mrs. John A. McCone a notable person? Do you agree with an edit like that? What possible justification can you show for it? --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You raise many interesting points but I wonder if this is the best place to discuss them as they have relevance to many other articles beyond this one. As you feel the dissenting editor has fulfilled ONUS and SHIPSNOTCREWS states that it can be superceeded by discussion on the relevant article talk page I will reply to him above Lyndaship (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I'm not watching this page, I'm not involved in this discussion, and have no desire to be. BilCat (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)