Talk:Barbette

message: The article "Barbette" was created on 4 October 2004, by long-term editor User:Stan Shebs, with 2 meanings: as the base of a gun turret, or the enclosure surrounding the guns before gun-turrets were developed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Created

message: 27-April-2008: The following names connect to article "Barbette" using keyword #REDIRECT for redirecting those names:
* Barbettes - the plural (added 27Apr08), because the singular word might not be obvious to the reader, in context (Google hits: plural=9050 alone, singular=43,900).
The German word for the plural is "Barbetten" as used in describing ships in World War I.
Other redirected names should be added here, if needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected names

message: Most barbette mounts were land-based, unarmored (except by stone, perhaps) and used for nearly 500 years.  This article is overly based on brief naval experiments. Anmccaff (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. Nobody said this article was complete. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not merely incomplete, it's at odds with itself, with sections directly contradicting each other.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing that contradicts itself - care to elaborate? Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see...we have -or rather had, a claim that "a barbette" was armor used for heavy guns, with an illustration of an unarmored en barbette mount nearby, and a quote -from Mahan, no less- explaining that -light- guns should be barbette mounted.  It speaks...well, spoke... of "field guns," while correctly showing an example of fortress pieces.  It falsely claims the usual use was in coastal works, but shows an unambiguously land-based illustration.  It talks of a disappearing gun hiding behind the "barbette," which was a usage never used for land guns, which is reflected by the accurate use of "parapet " a line or two away.  Anmccaff (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that contradicts itself. Barbettes used in ships (i.e., the photo to which you are referring) used heavy guns. Barbettes in land fortifications tended to use smaller guns. The two are not the same. The line about coastal works refers specifically to disappearing guns. Parsecboy (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and yet the big Columbiads and Rodmans, the largest guns of their era -which was also the era of so-called "barbettes" on battleships, were almost exclusively mounted en barbette, for obvious reasons.  Odd, that.  And their positions were never called "barbettes".  Disappearing guns lowered behind "parapets" or into "gun pits."  Your usage here is simply wrong. Anmccaff (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article say that large caliber guns could not be mounted en barbette? Or that only light guns were used? No, it just provides a quote from Mahan, a noted expert, that suggests that light guns were best in barbette positions. And if you're claiming that the use of "barbette" to refer to mounts on ironclads is incorrect, frankly, you're out of your depth. As for disappearing guns and parapets, try looking at this illustration. Barbette guns in land fortifications are, by definition, behind a parapet. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

text: If the guns are no longer placed en barbette, they are not barbette guns. It doesn't matter what kind of carriage they're on. You might as well say that some automobiles don't have engines and are pulled by horses, but they're still automobiles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most barbette mounts were land-based, unarmored... 

message: (diff | hist) . . Talk:Barbette‎; 20:51 . . (-7)‎ . . ‎Parsecboy (talk | contribs)‎ (yes they are - can you read?)
Tolerably well when the eyes aren't acting up, thanks.  Yourself?
As to the "splicing," in neither format I've used is there any ambiguity as to who wrote what, and separating a comment meant to be read near the thing it responds to is literally taking the words out of context.  Generally held to be a bad thing, that.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be all that hard to follow a handful of bullet points in order. If that's too difficult for you, perhaps we ought to separate the points into separate sections, rather than copying the same text over and over. But perhaps the wall of text serves another purpose. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re "splicing" 

message: As a casual glance above will show, I mentioned that "barbette shield" could have several possible meanings, yet you dropped an operative word.  This is why I prefer to keep call and response close together, it am.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense - I have never seen "barbette" used to refer to a gun house or internal bulkheads. 

message: Clearly there's no room for the photo. Did you look at the article? It's pushing down completely into the section below, which is wholly inappropriate. If you have questions, see Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then edit the format so it fits, or ask someone who knows how to, rather than remove the only example shown of the principal meaning of of the word. Anmccaff (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...you can't. There's not enough text to fit both images. What's so hard to comprehend about that? Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you bother responding here or are you too busy reverting me out of spite? Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, other editors aren't some function of the wiki software that you can expect to instantly respond to your demands; even if they were, it isn't clear exactly what your demand is.  If you actually think the article overcrowded, then why not take out the picture of Temeraire, a nearly unique example of a blind alley in naval design?  Anmccaff (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it at all unreasonable to expect a response while you're happily reverting me every chance you get? It's not exactly like you can pretend you're not sitting at your computer and/or on your smart phone... Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no edits during that time frame, by the look of my contribution history, and no one seems to have reverted you then either; is this happening in some parallel existence, perhaps?  Anmccaff (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Time stamps don't lie, my friend. My reply was here at 23:53, you reverted me at 00:03, and I questioned your inability to respond here at 00:25. Parsecboy (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: After I wrote, restoring a "B" rating:
[[U|Parsecboy}} reverted it, with a summary of..., which is hardly responsive.  Someone rated this a B, apparently, when it lacked any coverage of land-based use of the term...which is to say the dominant meaning over most of history; expanded to actually cover the whole of the nominal subject is unlikely to make it worse.  00:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the assessment scale, it's not complex. These and these require citations to meet B-class criteria. You know, it's ok to admit you don't know what you're talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of other points which, if held to the same level of nit-picking, could equally be tagged with "citation needed" which were in the the article at assessment, and are in it still.  What needs a cite is a judgement call, which often comes down to the knowledge and interests of the reader.  As I said, though, the article is better overall than when it was rated B scale in the past.   Anmccaff (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One wonders what "dozens" of points you're referring to. And no, what needs a citation is not a judgement call. Everything needs to be cited for the article to be rated as B-class. Parsecboy (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality assesment scale