Talk:Vasa (ship)

Unreferenced concept

Vasa was built during a time of transition in naval tactics, from an era when boarding was still one of the primary ways of fighting enemy ships to an era of the strictly organized ship-of-the-line and a focus on victory through superior gunnery..... This rather glosses over the long period in which naval tactics were changing from boarding to gunnery. Pretty much the same statement could be made for Mary Rose (or for a Swedish example, the Swan, sunk 1524). Tactics were still in a state of transition in 1650 – for example, see War at Sea in the Age of Sail 1650-1850, Andrew Lambert, pg 41: "In 1650 the leading naval power, the Dutch, favoured a close range melee action, but by 1672 the line of battle had been established...". The line of battle required further refinement, with the development of signalling among the essential developments. As an unreferenced piece of text, this content has to be questioned, especially in the context of what other naval historians say on the matter. At a minimum, the article currently does not provide sufficient periodisation of the transition from boarding to bombardment and is overly simplistic. The reference on which this part of the article is based would be helpful. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph you're quoting is cited. Why are you describing it as "unreferenced"? Peter ^Isotalo 01:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Because the concept quoted here (in the green highlight) in this talk page section is not mentioned at all on the page that is given in the reference. To be clear, page 49 of Cederlund (2006), starts with the weight of broadside, making comparisons with HMS Victory and USS Constitution. Then it discusses the "motley collection of guns" that prior warships tended to have, followed by production problems. Then there is a new section that discusses the classification of different types of guns, then goes back to the need for standardisation of the grades of powder required and the cannon balls fired. The next page continues on these themes of standardisation and then moves on to the actual specification of the guns in an inventory and as found in the wreck. There is no mention at all of naval tactics in this part of the cited work. I presume that you do not have a copy of Cederlund (2006) available to make this check. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked the history and the original (separate) statement was supported by a different web ref which was unfortunately lost when content was merged. Ref added, problem fixed.

I don't see that the rest of your argument is about factual accuracy as such but rather the level of detail. Feel free to tweak the text, but keep in mind that you're better off detailing this stuff in naval tactics and similar articles and link them from here. There's no point in getting overly detailed if it's not actually relevant to the article subject. Peter ^Isotalo 17:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

sfn to harvnb

I am mystified by the sudden change of referencing from mostly {{sfn}} (15 instances) to entirely {{harvnb}} (21 instances); The latter template had not existed in the article until this wholesale conversion. The edit summary mentions "consistency", which seems odd.

I also make this comment in the context of {{sfn}} being much more common – 161,000 articles, versus 46,000 for {{harvnb}}. I have heard comment that the harv set of templates can have more technical problems, though am not in a position to confirm that. Certainly greater usage indicates greater accessibility for the range of editors who would be welcome in this article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's the same standard as in galley per the PR in July. It went through an FAC without any fuss. I'm also assuming that a template used in 46k articles is approved by the community.

I started with the sfn because they were easier to replace. Feel free to help out if you want to improve the standardization! Peter ^Isotalo 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You do realise that you are laying yourself open to an accusation of disruptive editing (WP:DIS) by making large changes to referencing whilst this and closely related matters are under discussion here? Furthermore, I am no expert on the differences between the different shortform referencing templates, but if appears that you have chosen the template that is problematical with separate notes. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets#A citation inside an explanatory footnote. That is highly relevant to the current discussion. I appreciate that I am probably the wrong person to be giving you this advice, but you need to hear it from someone. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Peter ^Isotalo 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This being a FA, I'm a little surprised there is no settled WP:REFVAR (or is there and it's just not "enforced"?). It would be good to pick one, reftag, sfn or harvnb, and stick with it. Personally, if I start an article, I go reftag, name the refs for easy reuse in wikitext and VE, and use {{rp}} as necessary. But I know other people have other preferences. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You will therefore be surprised to see how common it is for FAs to have an inconsistent citation style. In a study of 101 Featured Articles, 71.3% were found to have a mix of short form and full referencing (which could be described as the "high level citation style"). Some of these are so heavily mixed that it is difficult to tell which is the predominant form. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's really only started in the last few years. Plus if the nominators aren't maintaining the consistency, it will degrade as people use whatever they prefer themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I was as surprised as anyone by the scale – and I am simply sharing the finding here. The degree to which it is a problem (and it is a problem) and what to do about it is another matter, on which I have no immediate opinion. I do wonder if the referencing enthusiasts (for want of a better term) who inhabit, for instance, the CITEVAR help page would be equally surprised. What, also, do Wikipedia readers think of this variability? OK, most never look at the sources, but some do. It is hardly the best bit of PR for the project. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at [1], which we are told is the version that got FA approval, references 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 all appear to be at variance with the main citation style. Perhaps there was a technical problem back then, but the Nature article (ref 63 in the FA approved version) was only recently fixed with [2] and [3]. Again, I am just digging up the information. I wonder how many others in the list of surveyed FAs had inconsistent referencing at the time they achieved FA status. I am probably all out of enthusiasm for looking at more edit histories for now, and it has just stopped raining. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a thing at all back then so I expect most of them have a mixture. And I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of my own from 10 years or more ago have a mixture from other people's additions since then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Question re possible original research

How is this

When other ships that predated stability calculations were found to lack stability, remedial action could be taken to increase the beam. This could involve adding an extra layer of planking below the waterline. More drastically, the process of furring could be used: planking was removed and extra pieces of wood were added to the frames to increase the molded breadth. The original planking was then replaced.

relevant to this article? Jonathan Adams's book mentions this article's subject but this text's source, a passage from that book titled "The Gresham Ship", does not. Further, were either of the actions described here ("furring" and the basic fix that Adams calls "girdling") done to Vasa? City of Silver 20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This point is a great illustration of the question over informational footnotes being in the article. As a footnote, it is an explanation that side-steps the main flow of the article and answers the question that many readers would surely have: "if a ship had insufficient stability, was there anything that could be done about it?" So that is setting the article content in the context of all Northern European 17th century shipbuilding, rather in the same way that the dominance of the Dutch in the international timber trade is mentioned in the section about the mainmast – another piece of text that would be well placed in an informational footnote. What is problematical is that if we are constrained into not having informational footnotes, then the reader is less clear that these are explanations that are outside the main narrative – but as editors we ask the question: if not footnoted here, how would the reader learn this?

On the question of possible original research, I really don't think that answering this obvious question with an explanation found in a major work on maritime archaeology is a problem. Adams even gives a date for furring in his source "(Mainwaring 1623 in Manwaring and Perrin 1922)" which puts us almost exactly contemporaneous with the loss of Vasa. The dating of the first predictive stability calculations for a ship is already in the article, but Adams also confirms this at page 77: "Unfortunately predictive stability calculations were still two centuries away" [from the loss of the Mary Rose]. Surely the job of a Wikipedia editor is to explain the subject, and this is all perfectly mainstream stuff. Or is there another problem? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @City of Silver. Be careful about going off on tangents when citing works that don't have a direct connection to this article. Putting claims in notes doesn't make them less subordinate to WP:OR or WP:SS. Please stay on topic. Peter ^Isotalo 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The more likely WP:OR in the article is a selective usage of a dictionary to contradict the major source for the article on the origin of the ship's name. The dictionary's meaning (1) includes a sheaf (kärve) as one of meanings listed. This is emphatically ignored in the article, as is the repeated interpretation of the word as a "sheaf" or a "wheatsheaf" for the ship's name in Vasa I, a book written and edited by a native Swedish speaker and a native English speaker respectively, who have both published in the other language in academic journals. Instead the article has the primary meaning of "fascine" and also "sheaf" in a heraldic context. The dictionary clearly states that "sheaf" is one of the several primary meanings. So what we have is the interpretation of a dictionary by an editor, where the interpretation appears to be incomplete and is certainly at variance with the major source on the subject of the article.

For the avoidance of doubt, any discussion of ship stability by a noted maritime archaeologist (who, incidentally, has done a lot of important work on wrecks of Swedish warships) has relevance to an article about a warship with a stability problem. Saying it is not relevant is like refusing article content on the Dutch dominance of the international timber trade from a book about 17th century Dutch shipbuilding. Or, for future content, questioning the relevance of Anderson's Rigging of Ships for explanations of how the contemporary rig worked. (Spoiler alert: Hocker and Pipping mention this book, it provides a useful measure of how study of Vasa advances knowledge, and is still an important work.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just try to focus on the article topic and keep the recommendations of WP:SS in mind. Peter ^Isotalo 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The focus is surely on the notable points that the article should convey. Amongst the several items on that list, the stability issues of ships before stability calculations could be made is an important piece of context for the reader. Another major notable point about Vasa is the survival of an enormous amount of sails, rigging and spars – far in excess of any other investigated wreck. Therefore the article should cover that sufficiently. That would involve some comparative technical detail. If this steps outside your comfort zone, that is not a situation where invoking summary style is appropriate. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that have content that may be technically challenging for some readers or editors; e.g. Chi-squared distribution. However, Wikipedia is where many people go for information on such subjects. Therefore it should be covered. None of this should be surprising.

In the meantime, the article still contains text that is at variance with the definitive source's view. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to keep discussing the definition of "vase" in Swedish, there's a separate thread for it. Peter ^Isotalo 19:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: separate informational notes section

Should the layout of this article contain a separate section for explanatory footnotes, similar in general appearance to the version here?

Options

• A. Separate section for explanatory footnotes
• B. No separate section for explanatory footnotes

This RfC was recommended in the third opinion shown above under Talk:Vasa (ship)#Third opinion.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option A, for reasons given in my justification in the Discussion section, below. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, from a accessibility viewpoint, my preference is a separate section for explanatory notes, because the screen reader will process them as a separate section, whereas when they are combined together in the References section, the screen reader doesn't know the difference between explanatory notes and references. It's my belief that all users (readers and editors), regardless of disability, should be able to read and navigate Wikipedia easily. But alas, I also realize that articles being accessible is a minority viewpoint and doesn't hold much weight around here. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why does it matter, from an accessibility viewpoint, whether the screen reader processes them as a separate or combined section? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: I don't immediately see any guidance on appendices at MOS:ACCESS. Is there any? VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only guidance given is in the section Article structure, which defers to MOS:LAYOUT, because apparently Standardization is already a habit on Wikipedia - which of course is not true. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, the section MOS:NOTES of MOS:LAYOUT does not provide any guidance on whether the sections should be separate or combined, instead leaving it to page by page editorial discretion. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Right, and it's the same with accessibility, because more often than not, WP:ACCESSIBILITY is based on page by page editorial discretion. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  From an accessibility viewpoint, my preference is for a note standard that actually exists outside Wikipedia. Because splitting explanation from the citation of that explanation just creates an unnecessarily complicated navigation.

  However, like you, I have no actual proof to back my opinion up. If you're serious about this, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, not an RfC for an individual article. I'm 100% for increasing accessibility, but I'm very skeptical to claims based on personal opinions. Peter ^Isotalo 12:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Specifically, anyone interested in this question might also be interested in the discussion Peter started at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Splitting notes is an arbitrary Wikipedia-made standard with unknown consequences for readers. I've linked to this RFC there as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• A if we are going to have explanatory footnotes, as we currently do, it makes sense to have them in a separate section from references. This is typical with how most nonfiction works are formatted, with informational footnotes in a separate location from the works cited. Commingling the two makes information from either appendix harder to navigate. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• B. MOS:NOTES indicates that "If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated". Given that the MOS allows both approaches, MOS:VAR supports retaining the existing style in the absence of substantial reasons for the change, and the reasons proposed so far are largely based on preference/popularity. These appendices are not typically read top to bottom like a body section would be, but accessed piecemeal by footnotes, which provide the necessary navigational function whether they point to one section or multiple. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• A since it allows the reader to immediately differentiate between footnotes for verification and those offering commentary. I agree that popularity is of no significant importance to the argument. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• A would be my preference. It makes the layout look cleaner. However as others have pointed out, both styles are acceptable. I would be happy if the people who actually work on expanding/improving the article made the decision. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, per Nikkimaria; we should retain the existing style without a good reason to change it -- MOS:VAR. Bringing in outside editors, like myself, isn't the best way to handle this sort of discussion -- as Peter says above it should really be left to the people actually working on the article. I would suggest that instead of holding an RfC that regardless of its outcome won't improve the content, editors who want to work on the article do so, in the existing layout. If amongst themselves those editors can agree on a change to the layout that would be much better and more collegial than having an RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  people actually working on the article - have you considered the four editors (three[4][5][6] plus me[7]) who have added an {{efn}} to this article? None of the three seem to be in this discussion and I have refrained from pinging them to avoid the accusation of canvassing, but an independent editor who is more used to the procedures may want to do so. Without their direct input, it seems fair to believe that they support a separate notes section. I think we also need to realise that there is not really a current group of editors working on the article. The most recent material change to content by editors other than the two in dispute is this one[8], two associated edits that are the sole contribution by that editor. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  In each case those editors had one editing session of either a single edit or a few minutes. This isn't what I meant by editors working on the article, and no, I don't think they should be pinged, any more than the scores of other editors with incidental edits to the article. My feeling is that the decision should be in the hands of those editors making significant contributions to the article, which does include you. I don't know if I've made this clear: I don't think anyone is acting in bad faith here. I just think the natural consequence of an RfC is to overrule RETAIN and VAR, and that is not in keeping with the spirit of those guidelines. Imagine if when you and Peter first disagreed about the use of notes you had said "Well, there's just the two of us working, and Peter's the main author; I think there should be notes but he's not convinced so I'll let it go and maybe in the future another consensus will emerge". The energy that you (in good faith, as I say) have put into arguing for the change, and the energy that that has absorbed from numerous other editors, would have gone into other, perhaps more productive edits. I believe that's the real intention of RETAIN and VAR -- to avoid what are almost always unproductive conversations by giving preference to the existing styles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's how Wikipedia is meant to work – articles aren't owned by anybody. And whether or not to use separate explanatory notes is about making the article more reader-friendly (even though there are different notions of which variant actually is more reader-friendly), not just about mere spelling or stylistic changes, to which MOS:RETAIN and MOS:VAR are meant to apply. Gawaon (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  As per your summary in this quote (even though there are different notions of which variant actually is more reader-friendly)

  There's simply no consensus about this in the community. That's what effectively makes this a stylistic issue. Peter ^Isotalo 13:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• B per several reasons given above, plus the main editor should not be bullied out of their editorial choice. Personally, I really hate this made-up style, never seen outside Wikipedia (I must read very different academic literature from VQuakr, as I never see this). Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: the style is not a Wikipedia original, [9]. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, as I say, I read a lot of academic literature, and never see this - it may be an American, or scientific, thing, in which case it should not be imposed on this article. It is certainly not, as you claim "typical with how most nonfiction works are formatted" (sic). Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr, can you show any actual real-world examples? Peter ^Isotalo 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The real-world examples are over at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Splitting notes is an arbitrary Wikipedia-made standard with unknown consequences for readers, where this has been WP:TALKFORKed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The main editor is not getting bullied out of their editorial choice, and that is a gross mischaracterization of the comments made in this RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely think this is a form of bureaucratic bullying. The instigator of the RFC has discussed this at length with both me and others and has been provided with plenty of counter-arguments. There's been no lack of discussion, only a failure to move on. Peter ^Isotalo 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The RfC, as you know, was recommended by the provider of the third opinion. That opinion was requested by Peter Isotalo. Without the third opinion, we would not be here now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well if you thought there was a behavioral issue with the "instigator of the RFC", then you absolutely should have reported that behavior in the appropriate forum. Did you? But speaking for myself, I don't appreciate the implication that my participation in this RfC has involved the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate the "main editor". Making unfounded accusations like this trivializes the harm done by actual bullying. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, I have pointed out behavioral issues,[10][11][12] but my impression that no one seems to really care.

From working with Thought on and off since 2022, my impression is that they simply refuse to respect contrary arguments are valid, or even that they exist. I think they're more and more turning discussions not into intellectual investigations but more like litigation. The latest comment is also extremely weird; Thought is trying to pass off their own choice to kick off an RFC as if there was no other choice.

As I've pointed out before, this RFC is about policy, not the minutiae of 17th century warships. There's no point in having this RFC other than trying to circumvent the "live and let live" aspects of WP:CITEVAR. Peter ^Isotalo 16:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is resolve what I see as a barrier to a better article. If you are going to bring up behaviour, though I doubt this is the right place, you need to consider the several occasions when you have not understood very simple problems with, for instance, missing or incorrect references. Most editors would probably give up and walk away – I have not. Is that a failing?

For what it's worth, I did feel compelled to progress this matter into an RfC, despite this not being something I feel I would have originated on my own. What would you have done in the same situation?

And, to be clear, this RfC is on an article-specific talk page. So it is not about Wikipedia policy, it is about this article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Most editors" would agree to disagree and move on. That's what I did with the she/it issue (I think "she" is overly conservative and unnecessary, but I accept it as a valid alternative).

You have been told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that the reference format you dislike is an accepted as a valid variant by the community. If you believe a particular variant is objectively bad and should not be used, your argument is not limited to any specific article.

Either way, it's pretty clear that this RFC is not going to create any new consensus and isn't solving any of your concerns. I recommend that you focus on working on the article and, in a spirit of collaboration, try to find a way to fit your improvements into the existing format. Peter ^Isotalo 14:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, since it's more helpful for the reader. Most readers will likely not pay attention to source footnotes, but may be more interested in explanatory notes that give additional details regarding the discussed topic. But they will only be able to identify the latter if they are numbered differently ([a], [b], [c] or similar) and hence also grouped separately from the source footnotes. It's best practice in Wikipedia, and it makes sense for this article too. Gawaon (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is not just a matter of presentational style. In the latter half of 2023, a second major source was published on the subject of this article covering, in the main part, the sailing rig of Vasa. Putting material from this source in the article will require a lot of terminological and other explanation that will be familiar to some readers and not to others. The easiest place to put that is in a separate notes section, where everything is grouped together. The reader can then skip footnotes if they wish or can refer back to them as they read further into the article.

A major complication is that the details of Square rig in the 17th century were very different from the latter half of the 19th and early 20th century, which is the experience of many with some knowledge. Therefore Wikilinks are not really an answer to explaining things, as existing articles tend to focus on the more recent versions of square rig. Rewriting a number of these articles would be a significant task and may then alter their balance by containing too much about the 17th century version.

A separate notes section will also be useful for information that breaks the narrative flow of the article, but is still material that is helpful to the reader. An example of this is the current text at the end of the Masts and spars section, which mentions the role of Amsterdam in the international timber trade of the time.(Note that writing of these sections has been paused whilst these layout matters are being resolved. There is a lot more material to add.)

The article contained a separate footnotes section until quite recently, though this did not exist at the time the article gained Featured Article status in December 2007. The first separate informational footnote was added in October 2019[13]. By 12 January 2024 there were four footnotes in the section.

A separate informational footnotes section is common in Featured Articles. A survey of 101 featured articles found that 68 (67%) had some sort of informational footnote. Of these 68, the survey showed 61 (90%) with a separate notes section. Of the seven articles that mixed notes in with references, four had no reference to support their content and the other three included the reference in a narrative form within the note. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this argues in favour of having explanatory notes in general, which I don't think is in dispute; about the only thing specific to the separation of notes is that some other articles do it. Anything else to support that position? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In short, it is very difficult to write on this precise subject without having footnotes. I have refrained from using footnotes whilst they are under debate, and it makes new content in the article on the sailing rig a mess. Much of the text recently added would be better in a footnote so that the main content could be added. It was a surprise to me to see how limiting it is when I tried it.

From the reader-based viewpoint, notes that explain a lot of technical detail are much easier to read if they are not muddled up with all the references. We are meant to be thinking of the reader first? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Referencing of the content of footnotes appears to be problem if they are not in a separate section. Others will know more than me about any technical constraints, but the survey showed this to be generally unsatisfactory. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have footnotes at all. The argument seems to be only about where they are placed. And I'm not seeing any reason why footnotes cannot be sourced regardless of where they are. That leaves us with what's best for the readers - do you have any evidence to support that one approach is better than the other in that regard? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The evidence for where they are placed is the best practice seen in the study of 101 other featured articles. All articles with more than just a few footnotes had them as a separate section. The study does not enumerate this parameter, but the list of articles with footnotes is tabulated and can be easily checked. This article already has some footnotes, text in the article that would serve better as footnotes, and potentially a lot more explanatory notes as new content continues to be added. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In quick look at WP:Featured articles#History, starting from the beginning of the list, the first article I found with no separate notes section was number 10 in the list, and this simply had no informational notes of any kind, just references. I searched as far as Act of Independence of Lithuania (18th in list) before giving up, still without finding any informational notes in the same section as reference citations. This snapshot, in a different section of the list of FAs, confirms the study mentioned above. More importantly, any editor can reasonably quickly make the same check. Do we know if FA reviewers operate any sort of standard on this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FA reviewers follow the MOS, which allows both organizations. More broadly, the evidence you're compiling is that one approach is more popular than the other - that doesn't make that one better or the other forbidden. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is the apparent 100% compliance with the rule "FAs have a separate notes section if there are more than two or three informational notes". There probably is an FA out there that has more than, say, half a dozen informational notes included in with the references, but the evidence is that it would be a very rare situation.

I have just checked, in alphabetical order Wikipedia:Featured articles#History and the first article (number 42 in the list) that has any informational notes in the list of references is British contribution to the Manhattan Project, with three instances. So that fits this suggested rule and further demonstrates the rareness of mixed notes and references. These checked articles show informational notes to be very common, even if there is just one in the article. I can keep looking if you feel that is necessary. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the observed "rule" may simply be derived from the behaviour of the nominators.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment from primary author

This RfC has zero merit. It's just an excuse to get a free pass from WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN. It's super-clearly about not liking other people's arguments and bureaucratic harrassment. There's no consensus-building at work here and not a shred of evidence that the desired change would either help or hurt readers. It's all 100% about the behavior and opinions of editors, not what benefit readers.

As I detailed here,[14] ThoughtIdRetired has become a genuinely disruptive force. There's plenty ofg potential for good contributions, but the relentless zeal and refusal to believe conflicting arguments or points of view needs to stop. Otherwise, it's likely just going to lead to more drama. I'm going to finish standardizing the formatting of notes and refs according to the standard that has been used in this article since 2008. If anyone doesn't like that like that, ask for a change in WP:CITEVAR instead of trying to bulldoze fellow editors. Peter ^Isotalo 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR says Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. This RfC is the effort to seek consensus that is mentioned by the guideline you linked. WP:FAOWN notes that this article is ...open for editing like any other. Neither of these guidelines say what you seem to believe they do. VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You are rules lawyering both guidelines by ignoring the part where they effectively say "we leave subjective stuff alone". Thought has been asking around about these issues, and me and several other experienced editors have kept saying "naw, don't do that".

This RfC has nothing to do with seeking consensus but is simply an attempt to bulldoze fellow editors. Peter ^Isotalo 14:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither section says anything like "we leave subjective stuff alone". It's not possible to ignore something that doesn't exist. Editorial decisions are based on consensus, and an RfC is a consensus-building tool. That's it. Its use isn't something nefarious or an attack against anyone, and treating this as if it's something inappropriate while throwing out accusations is unproductive. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr, you have been advised by several other editors that this exactly the point; we don't pick fights over things that don't actually matter.

Both you and Thought have approached this issue by consistently and wilfully ignoring or belittling any arguments that don't support your favored outcome.

You have zero evidence that what you're trying to achieve actually makes Wikipedia better for readers. You have zero evidence that what you're arguing against is a problem for readers. Peter ^Isotalo 11:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Untrue, but you desperately need to stop thinking of discussing changes to an article as "picking fights". VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

References

References

Foreign ambassadors

When talking about the people who witnessed the sinking of the ship, it says:

The crowd included foreign ambassadors, in effect spies of Gustavus Adolphus' allies and enemies.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to describe the ambassadors like this. It is true that ambassadors and envoys typically reported all kinds of stuff, including 'secret' matters (usually encrypted), back to their governments. Foreign rulers often knew about this and the worst case scenario was that the mail of those ambassadors or envoys was searched, possibly leading to some kind of punishment. But to call these people 'spies' as if it were something especially devious seems out of place. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:F49D:D84E:B426:1E42 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)