Talk:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Related task forces...


	Japanese military history task force
	Maritime warfare task force

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Japan To-do:

JMSDF has two flights of Kongo class destroyers: J3 (first four), and J5 (last two). Some key differences between J3 and J5 are in the Aegis baselines used (and probably the deployment of two helos). I have added the JDS Atago (DDG-177), and the (as of yet) unnamed DDG-178 (will update name as soon as made available to me, which should be very soon). Asacan 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

1 28th January, 2006
2 3 February, 2006
3 External linking
4 Removal of Images
5 Project Assessments
6 Is this a real JMSDF recruitment ad?

[edit] 28th January, 2006

I've fleshed out the fleet listing, divided the surface/sub fleets up and removed training ships from the list. I also removed the Chikugo and Takatsuki classes, as GlobalSecurity.org says that they've all been "striken" - I can only guess that means they're decommissioned. If someone can verify this, please post here to confirm. Thanks, John Smith's 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 February, 2006

I fixed some incorrect numbers. I think the training ships that are part of the existing classes should be listed, as outside of maybe an added classroom they are the same ships and will serve the same purpose as the other ships when needed. Yes, the Chukigo and Takatsuki class ships are all decomissioned.Spejic 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External linking

According to Wikipedia:External links we should always prefer internal links to external ones. If information from the site was used to improve the article then it should be cited under "References", which the GlobalSecurity site already is. If the other site was used as a reference then please cite that one in the references section as well. Bare external links should be used sparingly, and for articles like this should be generally restricted to official pages only. Adding anything more invites linkspam. -Loren 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, where does it say you can't use information that isn't from an "official site" in external links? All the navy articles on wiki that I've come across put information sites apart from the official one in external links. Why does this page have to be any different? John Smith's 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we should be very conservative when it comes to external links, especially if said links do not contain any more information then the article itself would once it has been brought up to a complete form. If information from the site was used in writing the article then it goes under References. As I have said before the Global Security article has already been listed as a reference and is therefore redundent. I did not personally use the private site when making the contributions I did, and therefore did not include it as a reference. If you did, then you're more then welcome to cite it. Finally, yes, many articles (not just navy ones) have long lists of external links, many of which, strictly speaking shouldn't be there according to guidelines. Which is all the more reason to keep this one as clean as possible. -Loren 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But the GS link as a note is not nearly as prominent as an ordinary link is. There is too much information from the site to make a note every time. And it's a guideline, not a rule. The link is highly useful for anyone wanting to learn more than doesn't read Japanese. It should stay. You can remove the mecha one if you want. John Smith's 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Images

Hi. I have asked John Smith's to revert back the two images removed as they are properly licenced. They were tagged for consideration for removal under an old licence but are now properly licenced. I also understand that editors should not interfere with images that are tagged as these are dealt with by admin. The users error is understandable, but any other objections? Thanks Des Desk1 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Desk, you didn't make it clear enough that they were your own pictures. People frequently use the free tags because they want to trick people into thinking they're free, when they're not. What I suggest is you do the following.

So please go through all your pictures and put the correct descriptions in. Say they're your pictures. Also remove duplicate descriptions. Your two MSDF pictures have the same summary on the image pages - separate them out.

I will add one picture back - I don't think editors should push two of their pictures onto an article. Of course you can add them to the relevant entries on those ship types if they currently have no images. John Smith's 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken on descriptions, each image must of course stand alone, done. Clarified for you that I am the copyright holder on Licencing, but this is already clear in the Licence details. Personally I think you did not select the best image if only selecting one. The point of the images is to illustrate that Japan strongly supported the event and went so far as to offer a salute and this in itself was an historic action. Other users had no objection to two images being used and other users have previously tidied up the presentation of the pictures? If you can source a better picture of this historic moment then please do so, but both pictures should be in for completeness. Can you put the other one back as well unless you have a strong objection? Also the Article text should be reverted back, the amendment claims that Japan only sent two ships and this is not accurate. Again the text is about Japan, Elizabeth II and Trafalgar 200 not just the ships.

The pictures were intended to support the main Article but of course can be used anywhere under the terms of the licence. Therefore if relevant to other Articles then of course you are free to use them. As far as I am aware there is no policy that editors cannot use their own pictures. I was there on the spot taking pictures and know that no others of this specific PoV were taken or are available, it is irrelvant who shot the pictures (other than for licencing) what is relevant is that they are being made available to Wikipedia from a pro source Gratis! Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Assessments

Nice length overall, nice intro, nice infoboxes and pictures. But each individual section is really short. Is there any expansion that can be done? LordAmeth 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)