Talk:Vasa (ship)

"It" or "she"?

Make your mind up! --194.176.105.156 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I see this was addressed two years ago (see above). I'll make the fix. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The archive discussion does not really follow MOS:SHIP in making clear that the originally established style should be followed. Looking at an [very early version] early version[1] it seems to me that "she" is prominent in the usage (the first occurrence of "it" refers to the keel, the second to the word "warship", there is one "itself" that one could say should be "herself". This is up against three occurrences of "she" and five of "her".)
I appreciate that opening this can of worms will cause many groans from other editors, but the article still has a mix of styles. Someone else can do a full count if they wish, but it seems to me that "she/her" instances are slightly more predominant. Given the current mix and the article's origin with "she/her", surely it should be cleaned up to a "she/her" consistent version?
Any thoughts on this subject? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dweller: as not clear to me which way you made the fix. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired It was easy enough to find in the diffs: this is what I did. Note, my comment referenced this one, now archived. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Your edit did not survive long - see [2]. My read on the situation is that MOS:SHIP applies. I also note User:Peter Isotalo's comment that the usage at the point that this became a FA is relevant. Both that version and the early versions of this article (including before its present name) all prefer "she/her", though there is some mixed usage in later versions, including the current one. Hence I feel that editing to the female gendered usage is appropriate. Since I happen to have a relatively strong personal view on the matter, I am trying to do this correctly and give anyone who thinks otherwise to state their case. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired, I would prefer we went with "it" regardless how we started it. Not an argument, just my two cents. Peter ^Isotalo 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

To balance User:Peter Isotalo's view, I have a real problem with "it" for a ship as I have to make a conscious effort to "change gear" to understand what the writer of an "it not she" piece is talking about. This disparity of opinion is well handled by the compromise MOS:SHIP, to which I subscribe, despite my strong personal preferences. What is clear is that the article contains both usages, which does not comply with the MOS – it is this mixed style that is the prime issue here. There seems to be a strong case to go back to consistently using "she/her" as per the early examples of the article. I would be interested to hear what correction User:Dweller (pinged, above) made. I could try and unravel that from the edit history, but having made the ping it seems to be impolite not to wait for an answer, as well any any thoughts from other editors.

Incidentally, I have done a quick check that maritime archaeologists do still use "she/her" for a ship. (Wrecks can still be "it" alongside that usage, as they always have been.) I see Jonathan Adams[3] uses "she/her", as does Peter Marsden (editor of the report on Mary Rose) – and students working in this area are still obliged to understand "she/her" as is illustrated by [4] which uses "it" in the main text and "she/her" in the ample quotations from historical records. This straw-poll type analysis, of course, has little relevance to MOS:SHIP. I just wanted to be sure that I was not arguing for something that is no longer reflected in the real world. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'm invoking WP:FAOWN as primary author and insisting that whatever was the most common at the time of the FAC should be the standard. I honestly don't remember if it's "she" or "it" and I don't care as long as we put the kibosh on another she vs it debate.

Whichever is used the most to refer to the ship in this version should be the standard. Peter ^Isotalo 14:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite easy to do an edit/find check on that version, which reveals the same mixed usage that is the subject of the original post, but with she/her clearly more common than it/its. I ran out of fingers to do an exact count, but it is pretty clear cut, with she/her being particularly prominent in the lead. I have to get to work now, but can put an exact count here later if you prefer. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Just after posting the above – does your link correctly identify the article version that was granted FA status? There is no "old version" warning if you follow your link. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The wikicode decided to include the closing parenthesis. Should work now. Peter ^Isotalo 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the 23 Dec 2007 article version linked above, my count of the various usages is as follows:
"she" 21
"her, herself, etc." 26
"it, its, itself, etc." 13 plus 3 as quotations
So that is 47 female gendered and 13 neuter (plus 3 quotations in that category). Expressed as a single figure, that is 21.7% neuter.
Looking just at the lead (about as far as many encyclopedia users get) the numbers are 5, 5, 1. This gives 9.1% neuter.

Beyond expressing a little surprise that this got to FA status like that, the article is clearly weighted towards female pronouns at that point. In absence of any thinking to the contrary and taking into account other factors discussed above, this would indicate that changes should be made to consistently use female pronouns (except in the three quotations). I will leave this for a few days to see if anyone has anything else to add, then start making changes. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I made these changes today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Referencing

As one of the older articles on Wikipedia, I think this article would benefit from some updating and improvement to its referencing. Problems fall under two headings.

Citation style

The article uses short form cites, but does not make use of any of the available templates (e.g. sfn). There is a significant advantage to the encyclopedia user in such a template, as it makes it a lot easier for the reader to see the full details of a reference. This is shown in this demonstration. I think the referencing for the article would be much more accessible to the reader if it were converted to the sfn template.

I'm not a fan of the sfn template, but there are bigger problems as you outlined below. I'd suggest fixing those first before changing the cite format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Quality of individual citations

Some cites actually point to multiple sources. For instance, this is found in the article. This has several problems:
It is not possible to question an individual source with a template.
All the sources of the article are not listed in the bibliography.
In this case, the credentials of the "historia" reference are not apparent as it does not have a citation style that allows the reader to fully understand who has published this paper. Is it a thesis or is it something published in a peer reviewed article?

Explanatory notes are muddled up with the references, for example. The fact that there is additional information on Äpplet is an extra fact, not a reference. (It would also allow a link to the Swedish Wikipedia article on this subject.) This practice is problematical as a reader may be happy to skip the sourcing of the article, but would want to see additional information on the subject. In this case there should be a footnote which has its own integral reference. This issue is quite widespread in the article.

There are probably more citation-based issues, but I do not want to make this post too long. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A single set of notes is a standard used in the vast majority of all English-language non-fiction works. They are per definition a place to add "additional information", regardless if it's a reference or some sort of comment. It's a standard that's been around for something like 200 years. I find the concept of separate commentary notes (with their own set of dinky reference notes) to a confusing "Wikipedianism". It's a solution to a non-existent problem.

If you want to apply templates, this compatible with with both comments and multiple sources per note. I did this in galley not too long ago. So you can apply templates and still respect WP:CITEVAR.

If any particular citation or note is off, just point them out and I'll try to address the issue. Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by the above answer. I think we all understand that there are tried and tested referencing and footnote methods dating back to the time when a computer was a person, not an electronic device. We also know that Wikipedia referencing guidance is based on these older methods (they had to start somewhere) but has technological options that make use of the capabilities of the devices that display Wikipedia. In addition, the nature of this encyclopedia is such that elements of the "tried and tested" references (e.g.WP:IBID) are discouraged as they have problems in this environment.

There are no firm rules on how notes and references should be handled, within the various options available. However, a key principle here is that Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers. I fail to see why an editor would want to restrict our notes and referencing to a system that mimics something designed for a paper-based system that worked with hand-set type on printing presses. (Anything to avoid having to proof-read an extra reference!) Deciding not to use the extra functionality available to the reader is a little like expecting everyone to have a rotary dial telephone in their home, a banking system that takes three days to make a payment, and a car with a magneto instead of an engine management system. We are not talking about solutions to non-existent problems, this is about doing things better because we can. Many users already expect to see this sort of functionality. Adhering to 200 year old methodologies is not a way of thinking that helps here – we should simply be looking for the best methods. If they happen to be old, all well and good. But it is surely surprising if techniques from a different era are still the best in a developed computer age.

Anyway, I will get off my soap box on this matter and wait to see if there are any other thoughts. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You have only your own personal opinions to support your stance here.

If you want to get rid of a certain standard of notes, argue that it should be made into a guideline. Please stop wasting time by campaigning in individual articles. Peter ^Isotalo 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You have only your own personal opinions to support... No, consider the opinions of the three other editors who have used {{efn}} to put explanatory notes in the article, plus the recommendations we see from Sturmvogel. This casts the concept of personal opinions in a different light. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes or somesuch. Second, copy all of the full-title cites to the bibliography and then reduce those citations to match the existing short title format. That should significantly reduce the current clutter without violating CITEVAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66, explanatory notes have no relevance to any "clutter". These are perfectly normal notes of the same type used in just about all forms of published works. I know of no other place except Wikipedia where people obsess about the idea of strict segregation of abbreviated references and any kind of explanations. Peter ^Isotalo 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I fear that the reference "clutter" may be the cause of a {{failed verification}} ([5]). I presume the problem here is a wrong page number or the wrong source being cited. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but I find it easier to have explanatory notes broken out separately. It's not an imperative, but a "nice to have". The mixture of full and short-title cites, though, definitely needs to be straightened out as I outlined above. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sturm, I find it very annoying to read efn-style notes and then have to click an additional link to see the actual source. It's a very good example of a formatting that exists to be convenient for users at the expense of the reader. Peter ^Isotalo 18:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand and I'm not telling you to implement them over your objections. I am telling you that there are at least two cite styles in use and they need to be made consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Fascine/sheaf

I have put a {{failed verification}} tag on the assertion that Vasa's name means a "fascine". The cited source specifically says "Interestingly, although the name of the ship was spelled Wasa (or Wase), the word for a sheaf of wheat, the symbol of the royal family from which the ship took its name, was commonly spelled vase". The word "fascine" does not appear anywhere on the page cited (page 15 of Vasa I, Cederlund 2006). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

See also "The new guns were richly decorated with the royal arms of Sweden with the Vasa wheatsheaf superimposed (just as on the middle panel of the ship's stern)..." on page 51 of Vasa I, Cederlund 2006. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Cederlund is not an authority on the translation or definition of Swedish words. If you plan on questioning translations of Swedish words with multiple or complex meanings, you need to know how to use Swedish-language dictionaries. If not, ask Swedish-speakers for assistance before you go around and tag stuff you don't understand. Peter ^Isotalo 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled as to why you think Cederlund 2006 is not an RS on this. This book is the first of a definitive series on the ship and the author, editor and contributors have a good level of access to all appropriate levels of Swedish scholarship. Do you think they did not use this if there was any doubt, especially since the point is specifically addressed in the source? They also have the ship as evidence – see the article's picture of the recreated carvings of heraldry, the source's picture (9:7) of the castings of a wheat sheaf on the breech of a gun and other evidence of how the heraldry was presented. The iconography alone is a powerful bit of evidence. Then I did consult a Swedish speaker for assistance: User talk:SergeWoodzing#Translation issue. One could also look at the preciseness of the English word "sheaf" in this instance. The OED entry includes a meaning of a bundle of pretty much any plant material (even though a common usage is for a sheaf of wheat or other cereal). So a subset of sheaf is fascine, but fascine's meaning is generally taken to be just the bundle of sticks used in military engineering. So it appears that "sheaf" is actually in good alignment with the range of meanings in Swedish – not something that you always get with a translation.

Over and above all the above discussion, do you have a source that translates 17th century Swedish into modern English? This is clearly something that Fred Hocker has covered, with the note on pg 14 of Vasa II, which though it is largely directed at placenames and ship names, makes clear that European languages did not have standardised spelling at that time. At present, I am relaxed that the correct term for the article is a sheaf of wheat, rather than a fascine. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

See also [6]. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You've been provided a solid source in this regard. The horse is dead so stop beating it already. Peter ^Isotalo 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The source given appears to support the idea that the name is derived from the heraldry and refers to a wheatsheaf. Look at the dictionary definition 1(a) which specifically refers to the heraldic depiction of a sheaf (sädeskärve). This is why I have sought a further opinion on this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The article provides both meanings of the word and explains the connection to the coat of arms. The word is not "derived from the heraldry". The only problem here is your lack of understanding of Swedish. Peter ^Isotalo 15:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Informational footnotes

The position in this article as at 30/12/23[7] was that there were three instances of {{efn}} being used. Each had been added by a different editor. An additional usage of {{efn}} was added on 10/1/24 with this edit[8]. That makes four different editors who have used this template in this article. To this is added the opinion of User:Sturmvogel 66, which is supportive of separate informational notes (as required by the efn template). In the spirit of actions speak louder than words, I take this as five editors who think this style is helpful to the article – four edits and one talk page opinion. Against this, we have, as far as I can tell, just one editor who thinks this article should not use separate informational notes and who consequently repeatedly removes {{efn}} and its associated separate notes section, most recently with[9]. This is in the context of the above discussion on the subject remaining open.

Is there any reason why the use of {{efn}} by four different editors and the remarks of Sturmvogel cannot be taken as a consensus that this template and the resulting separate notes section is desirable? This is an attempt to close this matter off so that the various article content issues can be dealt with. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The article was promoted to FA with the regular one set of notes.[10] It consistently used normal notes until this edit changed the note in the lead and split the sections.[11] They left a whole bunch of notes with comments as they were, and so have you.

I have no idea who the "five editors" are. You're pulling that one out of your ass as far as I can tell. You're reading your own views into what Sturm has noted here. And it really doesn't matter because there already was an established standard. You're just ignoring guidelines like WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN because they don't support your preferred outcome.

You also have a history of doing this since you tried the exact same thing regarding notes in galley.[12] And you followed it up with a very unfriendly campaign about article length. Overall, you seem to be pushing similar issues over and over which is very much a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Peter ^Isotalo 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The record of editors using {{efn}} is in the article edit history – it is there for anyone to see for themselves. One of the additions of this template was by a highly experienced editor as a "cleanup". I presume that you are getting so angry about this is that you didn't notice when it happened. The initial input from Sturmvogel was The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes.... Do you really need everything spelt out to you (and this isn't the first time – see The paragraph you're quoting is cited. Why are you describing it as "unreferenced"? which needed further explanation)? In the meantime, I am trying to improve the article with updated content. I very much doubt that the article would meet FA standards as it stands – not least because it needs updating. At the very least it does not have a stable form because you go in and change everything that any other editor does. It would be really nice to be able to work on this article in a co-operative manner. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion on this matter. Peter ^Isotalo 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

To expand on this point, the developing section of the article on the Sailing rig requires explanation of some of the terms and concepts used. These will be understood by some readers, so much of that explanatory material would be well placed in footnotes. Collecting those footnotes into one section of the article would assist the reader who needs to refer back to a definition/explanation. Having these interspersed with references might be less helpful for the reader. At present I am staying away from putting any potential footnote material in a footnote of any form. The sort of effect looked for is as in Cefnllys Castle#Notes, note 2 – though depending on how writing the sails and rigging section goes, there might be a good number of explanatory notes needed here. To be clear, the potential footnotes for the Sailing rig section will all need to be clearly referenced, which may be problematical if the footnotes are not in a format that readily accepts references. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The initially obvious resource of using links to appropriate Wikipedia articles instead of footnotes does not work well here as there are substantial differences between 17th century rig and rigging and any Wikipedia article that may focus more on 19th century arrangements (that is one of the key points of study of Vasa's rig). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a little bit of back and forth here, so, lets start over with both of your arguments stated so I can get a clean slate of the two positions. Please try to avoid mentioning the other editor per se in your viewpoint. :)

Third opinion

DarmaniLink (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by ThoughtIdRetired

On 30th December I suggested on the talk page that the article could do with some updating of the references. This was rebuffed by user:Peter Isotalo, who did not seem to have any argument beyond "I don't like it". Whilst it seemed that modernising the ref style was going to get nowhere, the article already had a separate notes section, with notes generated using {{efn}} (3 instances from 3 different editors). Consequently, when I edited this article on 10 Jan 24 with [13], I also used {{efn}}. The article content that was added was outside the flow of the article, but is relevant information to the article – so a footnote is a useful way of achieving this. This was reverted with on 13 Jan[14] with an edit that removed usage of {{efn}} by all four editors who had used it. This seemed at the time to go against the idea of consensus – with four editors thinking the template was beneficial to the article and one thinking the opposite.

I was then engaged sorting out a long-standing unresolved point raised on the talk page: Talk:Vasa (ship)#"It" or "she"?. I came back to the point about use of {{efn}} with this edit[15] which had an edit summary that I genuinely believed made the idea of consensus clear. On 3 Feb, user:Sturmvogel 66 joined the talk page discussion with The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes....

Since the edit summary on consensus had been ignored, I raised the talk page post immediately above.

Why does this matter? Normally one would just walk away. However this article is due a substantial update due to the recent release of a new source with new material. Some of that is on the Sailing rig of the ship. Many terms will need to be explained. The ideal method for this is with footnotes, so that a reader who understands the terms can keep reading the article. A separate footnote section allows the reader to remind themself of the meaning of a term by referring back to the note if necessary. The sort of informational footnote that is considered is something like Cefnllys Castle#Notes, especially note 2. The initial idea that Wikilinks would solve the problem does not work as there are substantial differences between the detail of 17th century square rig and the more familiar (and available on Wikipedia) 19th century version. The content of each footnote would need to be referenced and this is difficult to achieve properly outside one of the templates. Explaining why this technical problem exists is one for others, but in short you have to use something like (the deprecated) parenthetical referencing if you create a footnote with the ref.../ref method.

In short,(a) the impending article content really needs a separate footnote section to assist the reader ("article content specific") and (b) in the spirit of actions speak louder than words, we have a consensus of four editors who have used separate footnotes, plus one talk page commenter in favour versus just one objector.

In the meantime, I have fixed or highlighted several problems with the article (most recently a photo that looks worryingly like a copyright infringement) – arguments about the FA status of the article seem irrelevant when problems remain to be fixed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Peter Isotalo

The article has used the standard of a single set of notes since it was promoted as FA back in 2008. Some users changed one or two instances of commentary notes to efn and added a heading for a second set of notes. This was not done consistently and was not discussed. I reverted back to the one-note standard recently per WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN. The one-set note standard is not exotic or strange in any way, but a perfectly acceptable ref standard, both on and off Wikipedia. I don't believe individual articles are the place for individual editors to duke it out regarding the merits of this or that citation style. We have a clearly worded WP:CITEVAR to spare the community from getting stuck in these kind of debates. Peter ^Isotalo 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion by DarmaniLink

Okay, so, it says in the policy that citation styles should not be changed without consensus, in which in attempting to get consensus discussing the merits of various styles would be required. if this boils down to which we think works better, it becomes a matter of taste, in which "not liking it" (or put more professionally, thinking it isn't an improvement) would be a valid objection, and per WP:STEWARDSHIP absolutely is a valid objection, and given the length of time Peter has been working on this article, he absolutely falls under.

It is true that this is a FA, and major changes should be done with care. While changes usually shouldn't always be discussed first, if you see changes that don't make it an improvement, you're free to revert/undo/delete them, and contest the edits as they stand, where they would then be discussed as beneficial or not beneficial. Basically, the discussions over changing citation styles shouldn't be shut down simply because it's an FA, and thinking changes aren't an improvement shouldn't be dismissed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree that bold changes to citation styles should likely not take place, especially in a FA/GA, but there's no harm in discussing to reach an agreement on how to change them.

We also shouldn't assume that other editors adding notes after the first one was added are part of the consensus either without pinging them first, and asking their opinion. They may have just added more notes because they already saw one, or may be swayed to agree with peter and agree with him on the notes.

I think this should go up to an RFC, where other editors can chime in whether or not to have the notes, and how best to organize the references to ultimately settle this, and uphold the status quo until it's done (per WP:STATUSQUO). Because this ultimately is a stylistic dispute, it's outside of my boundaries as 3O to ultimately decide. I would also recommend both of you make sandbox drafts (or provide diffs) of your preferred version for the RFC, to save people time. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me stop this right now

I hadn't realized that this is a FA until DarmaniLink mentioned it above. With Peter being one of the original nominators for the FAC, WP:FAOWN applies and he gets the deciding vote because it's his responsibility to maintain the article after it passes FAC. Just like I have to with my own FAs. I realize that this isn't spelled out in FAOWN, but read the whole policy at WP:OWN and I hope y'all will understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: the "deciding vote" language is quite wrong, not supported by WP:FAOWN, and the opposite of the intention behind WP:OWN in general. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The FA community would disagree with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

So what? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (though I disagree on your characterization of that community's position; you are confusing stewardship with ownership). VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr, what point are you trying to make here? Are you arguing that we start duking it out in this article over the merits of one vs two sets of notes? Peter ^Isotalo 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Try again? VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr, it's an honest question so heed your own advice. I'm very frustrated by this situation and I'm honestly worried about pointless disruptions.

This is an article talkpage and we're trying to find solutions to issues relating to this article. Other than debating principles, what are you suggesting we do? Peter ^Isotalo 05:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

that's why i suggested an RFC :<

this way we don't have to fight over this, we can get a consensus, and hopefully spend our time on improving the site rather than getting frustrated with each other. Other editors may even agree that peter, having gotten it up to FA, should have the final say, or that his stewardship overrides any other stylistic argument, or perhaps to the contrary, agree with you that it doesn't. We shouldn't argue about consensus without first trying to make one. Imo this has reached an impasse, so either DRN or and RFC would probably be appropriate at this point to keep all our heads on. None of us are actively trying to make the article worse and we all want what's best for it. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink, I don't believe an RfC is relevant here because it would go against the whole point of just leaving mostly subjective issues like formatting and spelling alone. In my view, it would be as pointless as having an RfC to rehash the issue of UK vs US English or "it" vs "she". My experience is that the community has long since decided to leave these matters alone and accept whatever standard that's been established as long it doesn't clash with more "objective" aspects, like WP:V or WP:NPOV.

I appreciate your comments overall and think they're fair and neutral. It's only the RfC suggestion that I'm opposed to and that's purely for practical reasons. Peter ^Isotalo 08:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The issues raised aren't solely matters of taste; ThoughtIdRetired has expressed specific concerns that the existing cite style is insufficient to communicate the updated subject matter. That's a very different issue than the analogies of ENGVAR or ship pronouns you use. As near as I can tell ThoughtIdRetired concerns haven't been addressed in any depth beyond "that's not how we've done it thus far", which is a rather weak reasoning. CITEVAR says not to change styles for personal preference but that's not the reasoning being given. I'm unclear why you'd oppose a RfC to discuss since that's a pretty typical path forward. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've presented multiple arguments on this very talkpage here and here.

I've also brought the issue up on Thought's talkpage here and even all the way back in July 2022 relating to "galley" here. Peter ^Isotalo 09:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

2022 is a while ago and it's a different article. Suggest we focus on the here and now. Yes, I had seen those sections and they informed my characterization of the arguments to date. If I'm missing some nuance (which is entirely possible; they are long sections), would you be willing to link to a diff rather than the entire section? Can you explain why you feel a RfC would be undesirable? VQuakr (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

At the current state of affairs, there really isn't much more to say towards TIRs points other than "the steward, who got this article to FA, thinks your suggestions/edits in regards to the footnotes aren't an improvement" Generally FA stewards get to put their thumbs on the scale a little bit and frankly, I don't agree with the stuff about parenthetical referencing either, and found it a bit hyperbolic. It got to FA for a reason, and its up to them to maintain it. Even if I were to agree with one party and said "the entire citation style should be changed with to use explanatory footnotes", or "I don't think we should have footnotes in this article", that wouldn't change anything. 3O isn't binding. You would need strong consensus to override the steward, however he does not need that with you if he in good faith believes your edits aren't improvements, in which you would then need it yourself to override that.

At this point, I'm pretty much insisting that an RFC be held, to end this dispute. That's my opinion. Let the community form a consensus, and we can all hopefully just move on regardless of the outcome. I really do not see any way forward from this point other than that. If anything, we should move forward with that. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you might want to check out Thought's recent activities in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Separate section for explanatory notes. Do you still think an RfC is a good idea? Peter ^Isotalo 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd recommend taking a look at these diffs.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Peter ^Isotalo 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Those don't really address the issue. CITEVAR is about changing formatting styles of references, which isn't the main point of what's been proposed here. It also didn't address my request for you to provide diffs of a more substantial reasoning that are specific to this page. Do you still think an RfC is a good idea? Yes. VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr, I don't understand your comment. If not reference formatting, what do you believe is the main point here? Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a definitional issue on what we're referring to as "formatting". The harvb vs efn discussion below, for example, is something I would consider under the umbrella of citation formatting. Whether to put explanatory editorial footnotes in the same section as sources is question of layout not citation style. VQuakr (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You frankly have a better argument with the current state of affairs. I see the merits of both styles, don't agree that information is being lost in a way that cannot be explained or integrated into prose or is frankly even necessary, and would personally be fine with either. I realize that isn't helpful, but it's my honest viewpoint.

At this point, I really do think that due to the stalemate an rfc necessary just to end this. I'd probably personally !vote for your style citing WP:FAOWN, as things currently stand right now timestamped accordingly.

Would you rather argue about this for the next days, weeks, or potentially even years and cause everyone involved a ton of undue stress, yourself included, on how to organize the references at the bottom of the page rather than just get a consensus, in one way or the other? If the RFC agrees with you, great! you can now link to the rfc if this comes up in the future, or if an editor from the RFC tries to bring it up again, just ask them to WP:DTS. If they disagree with you, oh well, it's just the reference style at the bottom of the page, and now there's notes for different definitions, which admittedly could also be explained with just a simple wikilink, if any party is severely against notes, which in this case there is. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer to work on the article, thank you. Peter ^Isotalo 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of picture

I have asked for help about the copyright status of a photo in the article at [22]. Hopefully my fears are unfounded, but the link is here in case anyone wants to follow or contribute to the discussion at commons. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:27, 16 February 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 [23], 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 [24] and [25]. 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[26][27][28] plus me[29]) 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[30], 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, [31]. 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,[32][33][34] 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[35]. 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,[36] 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)