Talk:Battle of Santiago de Cuba

message: I'm afraid this article is not most reliable. See Talk:Spanish-American_War. Comparing with web sources, like http://www.spanamwar.com/santiago.htm (reliable-looking), the article contains some errors, and many "suspected" differencies.
I'm no expert at this subject, so I tried to fix obvious errors only:
* the second destroyer was Furor, not Terror
* the Cervera's ships were escaping west, not east; "Brooklyn" turned east, not west
* more correct designation for "Vizcaya" class is armored cruiser -it had side belt
The last paragraph, about Sampson with "New York" and "Massachusetts" chasing "Colon" is very doubtful - it was rather Schley with "Brooklyn" and "Oregon". Pibwl 23:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability issues

message: I notice the unwieldy referencing system seems to take up a lot of space and get in the way. You could concentrate more on content if that were fixed. The policy is against repeating book specifications. There are a few ways to fix it. I'm used to the Harvard Referencing System so I can start you converting to that. I appreciate the work some editor did to repeat all those specifications but there are better ways to do it. WP keeps changing all the time. Also, that first note is a lollapalooza (spelling?). Strictly speaking the policy requires page numbers there. A lot of that work is viewable on Amazon inside cover view. I suggest we go over to Harvard ref and start finding the page numbers. No doubt some of the page numbers will be the same. In that case we can apply the naming system to the same pages of harvnb. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see the page numbers on the letters of Note 1. If we were to carry this system to the other notes then we would have a lot fewer references of huge size. I don't know if I agree with that. It is actually a confusing system. Moreover, it is not the way references are done generally. In the interest of transparency, I am seeing this as a clumsy and thought-provoking system. We do not want to provoke thought on the format of the notes, I think, only on the material referenced. But this is a different topic from the use of harvnb to avoid multiple book specifications. Why don't you think about it and express an opinion. Meanwhile I can proceed with the Harvard system to simplify the specifications. Then we will be in a position to decide which is better. 20-30 letters hung on the same note or multiple harvnb's for the same reference. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking the leap to go entirely over to harvard ref. I find all these superscript numbers very confusing. I'm sure superscript page numbers are of use somewhere, but here they represent a confusing mixed system.Botteville (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm finished with fixing the citations. There were 4 references of books without page numbers so I placed "page needed." Other than that I think we are all taken care of. You can get back to the content, although I think the article is pretty good, myself. I did make a few explanatory additions, entirely minor. I flew in here and now I am flying out.Botteville (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations