Talk:International Code of Signals

message: The link for reference 1 seems to point to someplace specific, but when I click it I simply find myself on the nga.mil homepage. Paul Koning (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The government seems to change its link every few months. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 1 is broken 

message: I would like to see some revision of this article.  Currently it is pretty much just a section on history, and a somewhat overwhelming illustration of examples. I think it would be a substantial improvement to illustrate the complete set of signal flags.  Also, while some examples would be good, I think the existing illustration needs to be revised.  The extent of the code should also be touched on (e.g., there is a whole section dealing just with medical treatment), and that the ICS is not just a flag code, but suitable for multiple methods of signalling.  Anyone have any feelings or comments about this? - J. Johnson (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your suggestions, although I do not know the flags (my expertise is with the letters and code words of the NATO phonetic alphabet). — Joe Kress (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision? 

message: I am removing the mention of the "XGE" signal at the Battle of Tsushima.  This is a popular factoid that has been replicated all over the Web, but seems to ultimately derive from a single reference ("The Guiness Book of Decisive Battles") cited in the Wikipedia article.  I have found another account (Ronald Andidora, "Iron Admirals: Naval Leadership in the Twentieth Century") that puts a rather different spin on the matter.  Either way, I do not see that this factoid contributes to the article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "XGE" 

message: Regarding the newly added image of a "flag rack", I would ask: how does this contribute to the article?  It is not even clear just what the picture depicts, and its relevance to the topic seems exceedingly thin.  Would there be any objection to removing it? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It can contribute by showing, in a real world example, how the flags were used aboard a war vessel.  It could be improved, referred to in the prose and perhaps the label improved a bit.  --RadioFan (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image actually showed "how the flags were used aboard a war vessel" then it might be useful, but more appropriately in the article on Naval flag signalling.  (I am somewhat particular on making the naval/merchant distinction on account of so many people confounding that.)  Contrast this with the image of the signal bridge at International maritime signal flags.  Although it also does not show how the flags are used, it does better show the pigeon holes where they are stored.  The image here does not clearly show that.  Sure, I, and I presume you also, recognize the slots, but that is because we already know what to see. Most anyone else will see only unrecognizable shapes.  The image really does not convey any meaning (except battleship gray).  It certainly does not show how the flags are used.  Take a look at the "Flag Signalling at Sea" article by Barrie Kent (see Flaghoist signalling), and it may be clearer at what I mean.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there appears to be no substantial objection I will be taking the image out. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re image 

message: That link is not merely obscure, it's dead. And then there's unencyclopaedic. Somebody fix please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.113.82 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link has been replaced.  For future reference note that it is sufficient to identify dead links with  template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the interested reader is urged to download a copy of the Code from the link below." 

message: In the Talk:International_maritime_signal_flags page, there is a discussion of revisions to the display of the letter flags, and addition of number flags on that International maritime signal flags page. In that discussion, there has been encouragement to add those tables to this page as well. Please see the discussion there (or add to this section) if you wish to influence these proposed changes.
:Joe is doing up a table of the ICS single-flag signals and their meanings, which I think would be a nice addition here. I suggest right before the former "Examples" section, which I have just renamed "Examples of multiple-flag signals". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables for Letter and Number Flags 

message: I didn't check any references, but I highly suspect that the "Meaning when used with Numeric Complements" in the "Single-flag signals" table for the Golf and Lima flags could be wrong.  There are 60 minutes in a degree (and 60 seconds in a minute) so only two flags would be necessary for that, while longitude could be up to 180 degrees east or west, requiring three flags (latitude only goes up to 90 degrees north or south and doesn't need that third flag either).  The words degree and minute may have been reversed in those blocks.
MorelandBE (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem reasonable that degrees would be specified before minutes. But always check the source. And if that confirms your hunch feel free to correct the text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick info on latitude and longitude 

message: When adding content please use, per WP:CITEVAR, the citation style previously established in this article. The style for this article uses:
*  family of templates for the in-line citation (between the  tags in the text),
*  templates (not "cite", etc.) for the full citations, with the
* full citations collected in the "Sources" (or "References") section.
Ask if you need assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: You should review the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (WP:BRD). Please take a break from this discussion, and review WP:BRD now.
The batch of Bold edits you have done here have various problems, starting with citation style (which I addressed earlier).  I have not yet mentioned the various other problems, to avoid overwhelming you with criticism. But you do need to recognize that my Reversion of all your edits should put on notice that they ALL are questioned, and that the next step should be Discussion. NOT re-adding them. 
So I am going to revert your edits, again. And suggest we have a Discussion, here, not a slow-motion edit war. I suggest an incremental approach (rather than trying to tackle everything all at once). We can continue with the citation issues (above), or the general structure of the article, or any other aspect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRD]] 

message: Currently the article has a note for Charlie as a numerical compliment: "Course in degrees magnetic".
However, reading through 
I see on page 7:
"Course
7. Course is to be expressed in three numerals denoting degrees from 000 to 359, measured clockwise. If there is any possibility of confusion, they should be preceded by the letter “C”. They are always to be true unless expressly stated to be otherwise in the context."
I don't have any other special knowledge or experience to confirm if my understanding of this reference is correct tho. Should I update this note to be "True course" instead of "Course in degrees magnetic"? Or is there another source saying that this should indeed be a magnetic course? Donutsonhudson (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The suspicious statement has been added with the whole table by  in this edit: Special:Diff/604089813 on 14 April 2014 and it remains unchanged since then. I too could not find any source in the Web to support it, and I think you're right that it should be changed to 'true course'. --CiaPan (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, my contribution on this page was to copy the table of flags from the International maritime signal flags page, where I had done some work on the source table -- but my work there was only in the formatting and organization of the content (e.g., gray background against flags so shapes with white backgrounds would be visible). I didn't edit the content at all, just the formatting. If my investigation is correct, the content for "Charlie" about degrees magnetic was added by  on the International maritime signal flags page here: []. Regarding the topic in this section, I don't have any knowledge about what strategy is proper, and I don't have any objection if it changes. | JoeDeRose (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Charlie as a numerical compliment