User talk:Trappist the monk: Difference between revisions

Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make them at the article’s talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

To stop Monkbot, add a message to its talk page. Comments and questions about Monkbot are welcome here.

Hi there, strangeness at SS Mary (1920). I went in to remove what looked like some stray formatting (ending |} in infobox), but got hit with a ton of script warnings about unknown parameters when I hit Preview. I’m not sure how to make the formatting happy, so I’ve left it alone – just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note this edit – something in your script might be a bit broken. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your great work. I noticed that your edit to {{UN document}} at Special:Diff/1289641760 is causing issues at United Nations Document Codes#General Assembly, note the “Retrieved accessdate.”

Can you please fix it? Thanks, —Habst (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was dumb. Rhetorical questions: What was I thinking? And Why did it take seven months for anyone to notice? Fixed. Thanks for the heads up.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria listed for policy on Popular culture in Military articles on Wikipedia is stated as: “”In popular culture” sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture”. The films I have listed were all with top actors and winners of international film prizes. All appear to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as having a notable impact. If you could return it to the article, then I could continue to add further citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All you have shown with your collection of films is that filmmakers have sometimes chosen to tell stories about people that just happen to be set on submarines. That does not amount to ‘a notable impact on popular culture.’ The ‘culture’ most impacted by those films are the writers, directors, producers, actors, production house employees, etc who made the films and the purveyors who screened them. The rest of our culture? Meh, not so much; except that we might have handed over A Fistfull of Dollars for a couple of hours of entertainment.

So, no. I’ll not be self-reverting.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a conversation for another day; most people only learn what things like “periscope depth” and “crush depth” mean by watching the Hollywood films about submarine warfare. If you are saying that there is not one single Hollywood film which informs the public about submarines, then there appear to be many readers of Tom Clancy’s novels, which are often used for these films, who will disagree. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That audiences learn various nautical terms of art from films or the novels from which they derive does not mean that the submarines depicted in those films and novels have had ‘a notable impact on popular culture.’ The submarine is merely the stage upon which the story is enacted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m writing because my original thought was to begin the upgrade process for this article to get it back to peer review status. Early in Wikipedia history it was actually a successful FA before being delisted. After taking your comment seriously, I then looked up various War Presidents to see how their Popular culture sections dealt with Hollywood films, and the result was to favor mention of the Hollywood films in both the FA for James Madison mentioning the Burgess Meredith film, and the FA for Abraham Lincoln which mentions the Oscar winning film about him by Steven Spielberg. If, after looking at these, you might think about returning the section here (even with restrictions), then I could continue with looking towards upgrading the article to get it back to its previous peer review status. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are truly interested in restoring Submarine to A, GA, FA, or whatever status, starting with a pop culture section seems the wrong way to go about it. When the subject is examined as a whole, pop culture is amongst the least important of subtopics to be considered in the article’s redevelopment. Spend your time working on the meat of the article, not the fluffy bits. In the history of the article, there was a truly awful pop culture section; see this version (permalink) of 12 August 2009. That pop culture bloat was deleted at the next edit. Apparently, your edit is the first attempt to reintroduce a pop culture section to the article. Please don’t.

And, you know, the current §See also (permalink) does have a link to Submarine films…

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That 2009 version you just linked really says alot about being soured regarding a Popular culture section here. Separately, my best assessment of the article for upgrade is that it might require more than one editor to try to get it to GA-level in a reasonable amount of time. On Wikitools, you are presently listed as #22 on the top editors list, and if you might think about a joint upgrade to get it first to GA-level, then I can start considering the upgrade process. It might even be worth asking Fnlayson, the top editor, if he could join in as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any list that suggests that I’m a ‘top editor’ should be viewed with suspicion and skepticism. Improving articles is not my thing so I’ll pass, thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. If its low priority both yourself and for myself then the article might need to sit longer with its many cite tag requests and many overedits during the past several years; you are listed on WikiTools as making over two or three dozen edits to the article. After reading all of your links, then it seems like the article might benefit from a documentary films section if it could be limited to documentaries only. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]