Talk:SOSUS

message: The article says the purpose was to cover the GIUK gap. The caption on the undersea (probably copyright violation) map shows the first sensors on the US eastern seaboard. I.e., completely out of range of the sensors. What gives? Piano non troppo (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture caption conflicts with article text, maybe

message: I removed a link in the opening to the article "Integrated Undersea Surveillance System", since that article redirected to this one.  Perhaps a better solution would be to retain the link, and delete the redirect, so the link here will be red until that article is started?? SlowJog (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrated Undersea Surveillance System 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SOSUS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018003951/http://www.cus.navy.mil/timeline.htm to http://www.cus.navy.mil/timeline.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081108115221/http://www.navy.mil:80/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus.htm to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on SOSUS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219020221/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081108115221/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus.htm to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231055346/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713141157/http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ldeo/alum/assoc/pgi.html to http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ldeo/alum/assoc/pgi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is there any reason for the bizarre use of present tense in the chronology section? It's used inconsistently, is jarring to read, and doesn't make much sense. If there's no objection I might edit all of it out if I have the time and/or inclination. Brightnsalty (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What "bizarre" use bothers you? Chronologies often flow with an "at this time this happened" style. To a large degree the text here paraphrases and maintains the style of the references. I would warn you that a real problem has occurred with some "grammatical changes" that changed the substantial meaning because the grammarian did not research references and understand the subject. The changes leading to the 01:37, 30 November 2020‎ revision was a reword driven by such a change. Getting rid of inconsistent tense or jarring points is fine, changing meaning is not. One problem that I recognize is that the chronology is a compromise between the bullet style of the early declassified history (when the less said was better) and more extensive later discussions of those events. Palmeira (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be written in past tense, period. A bulleted list making use of the present tense would probably be acceptable, but there should be no compromise on accepted style guidelines. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird present tense in the Chronology section