Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

Copied content[change source]

Content on this article was copied from English Wikipedia’s article, which is free to use under a CC-4.0 license. Acknowledgement of the copied content here instantly makes it ok to use. It needs to be re-written anyway for Simple English language. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, the moment I fix the original speedy deletion reason, it is automatically re-tagged. This is a WHOLE LOT simplified from the 135,000 byte sized English Wikipedia article. Legit the simplified version is 3 sentences. No way in hell this is too complex. Mastashat, please comment here how 3 sentences (less than 800 bytes) is too complex for Simple English, when the article copied from is 135,000 bytes. Please explain. Sorry if I seem annoyed, I am slightly since you originally tagged it for speedy deletion under 1 reason, I fixed that reason, then you re-tag it once again for a different reason. Some comments here would be nice. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, rewrite it and add more sources to establish notability or it will be re-tagged with A4. This is just a good faith advice. Mastashat (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You figure out how to rewrite that. I cut out a huge amount that got re-copied. 90% of that you can’t re-write without changing the meaning. I can easily add dozens of sources, especially given a type of this destroyer is in the Israel-Hamas war right now. Stop trying to speedy delete it and work to improve it. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page is having more knowledge on it and doing more research about it.

The rule clearly stated, A3-Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text. If an article is being simplified, the template can be added to it. That does not allow the article to remain complex forever, but it gives editors some time to simplify it.

Note: You still have time to simplify it to an encyclopaediac tone. Best, Mastashat (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please remove the tag. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also add the tag: {{simplifying}} to show admins it's being worked on. Mastashat (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that is necessary. I think you can go ahead and remove the tag. I am unable to as I created the article. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show me you are working on the page by adding the {{simplifying}} under {{wait}}. Only that is an assurance not only to me but other editors that you are simplifying the page. Best, Mastashat (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastashat: The tag was added, despite me not going to work on the article much more tonight. Now will you please withdraw the speedy deletion tag? This article literally has 3 template tags, all unnecessary because you seem to not be willing to withdraw your speedy deletion tag, despite the article having no copyright issues and now 7 sources. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to make article simplified further[change source]

I need guidance from other editors. Recently, I was more or less told to add the simplifying tag to this article (seen as of this version). I am unable to simplify this article further, however, someone else seems to think it is too complex still. I will leave the simplifying tag on this article for a few days, but if no changes are made to the text (i.e. lead and 2 history events) in a couple of days, I will be removing the tag as I see no further way to simplify the article. It uses basic terms that are easy to understand. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your word seems to appear rude. Addressing the issue, You placed the {{simplifying}} to notify Simple English Wikipedia that you are simplifying the page. Bear in mind that if the page is reviewed and doesn't meet Simple wiki criteria for inclusion, it will be tagged for deletion. Best, Mastashat (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the tone, I was not intending to be rude. I am more just confused. You told me to add the tag, to show that I am simplifying the page. The page has been simplified in my opinion. My question is when do I remove that tag? You told me to add the tag post-my simplification, which is why I started this discussion. I do not see a way to simplify it more, which is why I am confused on why I needed to add the tag in the first place. This discussion was started to serve two purposes:

What else needs simplified, as that is how I perceive the request to add the tag after my simplification?
How do we know when to remove the tag?

Once those questions are answered, then this discussion would be finished. I am not trying to be rude or anything. I am truly confused on why you told me to add a simplification tag to the article after I already had simplified it. I perceive that as an indication from you that the article needs more simplification, which is why I am asking what else needs simplified. I hope that helps explain why I started this discussion. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section[change source]

The recent additions of every engagement by this class of vessel near Yemen are not the history fo this ship-type, but a history of the Houthi conflict. @WeatherWriter, I think these should be removed as not relevant. Some of the detail could be moved to Houthi attacks in 2024. Thank you, --Gotanda (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gotanda. So actually, even the EN article ([1]) has a section for the "Operational history", which does include the recent attacks, at least through December 2023. So in reality, they do not need to be removed, but the operational history of the class of destroyers needs to be improved. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent attacks text on En is quite brief compared to the whole article. The balance here is giving undue weight to recent events. And, we are not EnWP. --Gotanda (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]