Talk:Spanish battleship Jaime I

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish battleship Jaime I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 00:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing all three of the España-class battleship articles. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead & infobox

Convert turret length.

Both are already linked.

Service history

You should red link Spanish gunboat Eduardo Dato.

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

These two issues remain. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Here and here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammar

@Shams lnm: - in this case, "historian" as a title is an adjective that describes the individuals. The definite article is required in this case. You would not say "I went to the the store, and cashier Bob rang me up"; you'd say "I went to the store and the cashier Bob rang me up." Please stop edit-warring poor grammar into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Historian is NOT an adjective; it’s a noun. And, yes, you are plainly wrong. I am surprised by your confidence. You are so wrong and so confident at the same time. Wow! Shams lnm (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote is so wrong in so many respects that I am genuinely surprised. Do you really believe that “historian” is an adjective? Seriously?

Your example is -equally- wrong. No, we don’t write “I went to the store and the cashier Bob rang me up”; in English, we write: I went to the store and the cashier, Bob, rang me up. Shams lnm (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Tell me, if you're eating chicken soup, what part of speech is "chicken"? Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

chicken soup - Wiktionary, the free dictionary Shams lnm (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Chicken is an attributive noun (or noun modifier) in the phrase chicken soup. It tells us what is in the soup." https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/133325/is-chicken-a-modifier-in-chicken-soup Shams lnm (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know any other words for an “attributive noun”? Also, why are you citing the equivalent of Quora? Do you understand what a reliable source is? Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

“Do you know any other words for an “attributive noun”?”

Yes, I do.

“Also, why are you citing the equivalent of Quora?”

To give you context.

“Do you understand what a reliable source is?”

I fully do. Do you understand what a reliable source is? And, actually, do you consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information?

Bottom line: It is evident to anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language that you are wrong. I am still surprised by your confidence. I am tempted to ask you where did you complete your secondary education; was it in an English-speaking country or somewhere else? Shams lnm (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So you understand that in the phrase "chicken soup", "chicken" is functioning as an adjective that modifies "soup"? Good, glad we're on the same page.

Clearly you don't, if you're citing a forum post to support your argument.

Do me a favor and read the rest of the article. Are you suggesting that:

The French added the battleship Paris, two cruisers, and several other vessels. should drop the definite article?

On 2 October, sailors from Jaime I, having learned that the destroyer Almirante Ferrándiz had been sunk by the Nationalists should drop the definite article?

Since you don't seem to be aware, you need to rethink your personalized commentary. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

- “Chicken” is a noun; “soup” is a noun; “chicken soup” is a noun; in “chicken soup”, “chicken” functions as an attributive noun.

- “Historian” is a common noun; “Albert Nofi” and “Marco Mattioli” are proper nouns. Using the definite article “the” before “historian” or “military historian” is wrong in the said context.

- The chicken soup example is an ill-chosen one.

- I will give you some examples that are indeed relevant. When you visit a hospital, do you say “I have an appointment with doctor Evans” or “I have an appointment with THE doctor Evans”? When you refer to a mathematician’s work on Goldbach’s conjecture, do you write “the proof presented by mathematician Helfgott […]” or “the proof presented by THE mathematician Helfgott […]”? When you talk to a friend of yours on the phone, do you say “THE doctor Evans prescribed me […]” or “Doctor Evans prescribed me […]”?

- “Do me a favor and read the rest of the article. Are you suggesting that:

The French added the battleship Paris, two cruisers, and several other vessels. should drop the definite article?

On 2 October, sailors from Jaime I, having learned that the destroyer Almirante Ferrándiz had been sunk by the Nationalists should drop the definite article?”

No, I don’t.

- Do you consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information? Is [not always, sometimes] a Wikipedia entry sort of a “forum post”? The answer is “yes”, when we refer to thousands of brief entries citing no bibliography.

- “Since you don't seem to be aware, you need to rethink your personalized commentary.”

Same thing for you when you asked me if I “know any other words for an attributive noun” and if I “understand what a reliable source is”. Shams lnm (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why the noun "historian" does not require a definite article when it describes "Albert Nofi", but the noun "battleship" does require the definite article when it describes "Paris".

As far as your examples, I'm sure you are aware that vernacular English does not follow the same rules.

One wonders why you keep bringing up Wikipedia as a source; I haven't cited it, beyond pointing out the same grammatical constructions that you apparently think are fine.

Better start writing some letters to the editor - the NYT disagrees with you, as does The Telegraph, The Guardian, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "abandoned the discussion" (as you accuse me...). I have already explained why you are wrong. I don't have plenty of time to (mis)allocate to endless parallel monologues with you on grammar and syntax. Sorry... Shams lnm (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you did - and your refusal to discuss further and simply revert is going to get you blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you shall be blocked ASAP!! Shams lnm (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't teach you the basics of English grammar and syntax. Shams lnm (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You can keep your uncivil comments to yourself; you can also apply your personal preference to any articles you write, but you are not free to impose them when someone disagrees with them. Clearly this is a matter of preference, given the number of reputable newspapers cited above that disagree with you.

If you revert the article again, we will be going to WP:ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Go wherever you want to go. Shams lnm (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Shams lnm that the word 'the' is unnecessary here. It wouldn't be wrong to include it, but it's certainly not a problem to omit it. My problem with the sentence is the repetition of the word 'historian' - also not wrong, but using a word like that twice in quick succession is a bit jarring. Perhaps just a bit of rewording of the whole sentence would result in something that nobody would disagree on? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur; you are right. Shams lnm (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

How about just removing the pseudo-titles altogether? Both authors are writing about an historical military event - it's not a huge stretch for the reader to assume that they are both military historians. (Having said that, I think the title is a bit of a stretch for Marco Mattioli; he writes about history, but according to his publishers' bio he's more of a specialist journalist; personally, when I read the word 'historian' I assume we're talking about an academic.) Girth Summit _(blether) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Though I'd point out that there are many historians who are not formally trained academics; one wouldn't say that Barbara Tuchman isn't a historian, after all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for my delayed response. I agree with Girth Summit’s proposal.

P.S.

Someone can be an expert in a scientific (or other) field without having earned a higher education qualification in that discipline. This is especially true in social sciences; it is less common in exact sciences. Nevertheless, I agree with Girth Summit’s suggestion regarding M. Mattioli, and -in general- I agree that citing titles (professional, academic, or other) is often (though not always) superfluous. Shams lnm (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: @Parsecboy: I wanted to add that when someone (such as Mattioli) is not indexed in Wikipedia and is not well known to the general public, an explicit reference to that person’s professional identification could be warranted. In my opinion, it is not inaccurate to write that Mattioli (in addition to being a journalist) is a military historian. If Mattioli had a biographical entry in Wikipedia and if we could use an in-project link, the reference about him being a military historian would be redundant. Since we can’t do that, writing that he is a military historian seems logical to me (because most readers don’t know who Mattioli is). Shams lnm (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel especially strongly about it - I certainly don't think that it would be wrong to describe Mattioli in those terms, and given that we don't currently have an article about him, it makes sense to explain who he is or at least why his thoughts might be relevant. Whatever works - it's not worth arguing about. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:That's right. Shams lnm (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd just as soon leave it out - readers can see he wrote a book on a related topic. It's probably beyond Wikipedia's scope to go much into the trustworthiness of a given source, beyond deciding if something is reliable enough to use or not (which is not presented to readers). Trying to parse out someone's credentials can become a thorny issue in more ways than one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)