Jump to content

Talk:HMAS Sydney (R17)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 22, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 25, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that HMAS Sydney (pictured) was the first aircraft carrier owned by a British Commonwealth nation to serve in combat?

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Sydney (SMH 290851).jpg

[edit]

Image:HMAS Sydney (SMH 290851).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters in Korea

[edit]

I've recently been told by an on-board witness the the USN helicopter used in Korea was a substitute for the intended Westland build aircraft. The Westland aircraft had suffered from blade de-lamination, and was unfit for service. Is this an item that people think should be mentioned in the article? I can undoubtedly obtain more details if required. Number774 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find some reliable, published sources making these claims, by all means add them or list the information here. If we can't work them into the article as it stands now (balance, undue weight, etc), I'd happily consider it for the massive expansion of the article I have in the works. -- saberwyn 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Westland introduced metal rotor blades on the Dragonfly before Sikorsky did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian War Memorial images

[edit]

While undergoing the rewrite of this article, I trawled through the Australian War Memorial image archives, and found several images of use. They are listed below, with the relevant image number(s) indicated in brackets. I have not had an opportunity to download these and upload them to Commons yet...if anyone beats me to some or all of them, I will not complain. -- saberwyn 09:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (305532) Launch of the hull Terrible, later Sydney (Construction)
  • (304528) First helicopter landing on Sydney (Appropriate history)
  • (301438) Sydney entering Sydney Harbour for first time - Fort Denison and Harbour Bridge seen (place in history)
  • (044801) Sydney underway with Firefly and Sea Fury aircraft flying overhead (Aircraft)
  • (301472/03) Sydney underway with Firefly and Sea Fury aircraft flying overhead (Aircraft - if left-aligned image needed)
  • (305197) Bofors being fired during a gunnery exercise (Armament)
  • (147462, P01838.005, 147466) Sydney, left, alongside Glory, right, docked alongside each other at Kure Harbour on 29 September 1951. Sydney would go to Korea, while Glory sailed to Australia for refitting (Appropriate Korea)
  • (P01838.004) Uncle Peter on the flight deck (Appropriate Korea)
  • (P00721.004, P00721.005, P01838.014) Snow on the flight deck and aircraft in January 1952 (History - apprpriate place in Korea)
  • (300178, 300179, 300180) HMAS Sydney, Anzac, and Vengeance exercising off Queensland in 1953 (appropriate History, also for Vengeance)
  • (301476) Vehicles secured on deck during trials in 1962 for new role as transport. (Appropriate history)
  • (P01004.001) Army AA gun on the deck of Sydney (appropriate history - Malaya/Confrontation)
  • (P00053.002) Personnel from 1 RAR formed up on the flight deck of Sydney; overhead shot
  • (P01539.020) Vehicles secured on deck during a 1968 voyage to Vietnam (appropriate Vietnam)
  • (043893) Sydney leaving Sydney Harbour under tow en route to scrapping (Fate)

Studded with numbers

[edit]

Quite an impressive expansion! A suggestion, though: consider balancing the verifiability benefits of having notes after every single sentence against readability. Right now, the article has a massive redundancy of notes, particularly when the same note is repeated in several consecutive sentences.

Peter Isotalo 22:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliment and suggestion. However, I'm of the stance that every fact is contestible, so every fact should be blatantly cited. It aids in verification (as you mentioned), and in vandalism detection (in an article where every sentance is meant to be cited, a sentance without a cite raises an instant red flag). -- saberwyn 09:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you will, but keep in mind that this forest of footnotes will never stop vandalism because that's not what it's intended to do. That issue is properly dealt with through careful reviewing and vandal patrols. Footnotes are there to actually be read, not quantified by drive-by reviewers. Any halfwit POV-warrior or joker can insert whatever disinformation they want next to a footnote or within a footnoted sentence. You need to actually check the information behind the citation for it to be useful, and that makes this type of reference density utterly pointless.
All requirements need to be balanced, and the "every-sentence-is-guilty-until-proven-innocent"-stance isn't even stipulated by policy. Hell, it's not even required by the latest FAs. The only thing this achieves is to put off all but the most dedicated readers.
Peter Isotalo 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images to identify

[edit]

There are some images from the State Library of Queensland in commons:Category:Sydney (ship) that need identification. See my comments at commons:Commons_talk:State_Library_of_Queensland/Subjects#Sydney_(Ship). John Vandenberg (chat) 06:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS Sydney (R17). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS Sydney (R17). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMAS_Sydney_(R17)&oldid=1213271926"