User talk:Basetornado

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Basetornado. Thank you for your work on Bertram Armytage. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thank you. :) Basetornado (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 World Athletics Championships – Men's discus throw[edit]

You actually wrote a better summary of this event than I did. A few things I do have issue with. The allegiance switch, the Olympic champion's absence from the event, was a factor and it was caused by Turkey effectively buying top level athletes, particularly from Jamaica. "For money" is a shorthand for a major story that should be covered, and a source covering it. Similarly, as background, there should be a reference as to why these top level athletes are throwing nowhere close to the world record in their top competition of the year. The wind tunnel records vs in stadium competitions needs some sort of mention, you may not like my shorthand for mentioning that. You tried on several occasions to use the imperial conversion. Tenths of feet is not appropriate, the correct converter for discus is {{T&FcalcR|value}}. I will fix and add it for the winning throw which is a normal addition to a summary.Trackinfo (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no issues. I just don't feel "for money" is really the correct language to use, plus the world record may well be done using wind tunnel conditions, but I didn't really think it was that relevant to the competition itself. I don't think I used imperial conversions. That was added by others. I just go with metric measurements. I had a look and it got changed a bit after I wrote it and before you saw it I believe.

My main issue was that it was originally written more like a blog post. All good now though. Basetornado (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Basetornado. Thank you for your work on HMAS Emu. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for this article about the Australian Navy! Have a blessed day! Britain (and Australia) rule the wave!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 12:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMAS Emu moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to HMAS Emu. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 10:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basetornado,

Feel free to nominate this for DYK again if/when you add sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page was reviewed and rated C two days ago. While, yes I can understand saying it isn't suitable for DYK. It is a Naval warship. It is notable via WP:MILNG as either "4:Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Examples include HMAS Sydney, USS Enterprise and SMS Blücher;" or "5: Civilian vessels serving as auxiliary warships are notable in the same way as commissioned warships. Otherwise, a civilian vessel's notability is derived from participation in a notable naval action or association with an otherwise notable military figure. Examples include SS Ohio, RMS Lusitania and Queen Anne's Revenge;" HMAS Emu can be described as both, but is likely closer to 5. Either way, it already meets notability.

There are five sources, including the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Archives of the Northern Territory and the New Zealand Maritime Museum. These are all credible sources. The fifth source is also credible, being The Navy League of Australia, an organisation centered on the Royal Australian Navy, the source utilised being a minor source to show that the vessel was still in service in civilian life as of 1977.

Please tell me in greater detail, the reason you have removed the page to draft, because "it needs more sources to establish notabilty" does not make sense, given again it already meets notability automatically as a commissioned vessel, as well as multiple credible sources about the vessel itself. Basetornado (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things.

WP:MILUNIT states: As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion: (my emphasis)
From the article HMAS Emu (DT931) was a tugboat, that served in the Royal Australian Navy, between 1946 and 1959, largely in Northern Australian waters off Darwin. Presuming for arguments sake that WP:MILUNIT stated "assumption" and not "presumption" the vessel still wouldn't meet 4 or 5 because it was neither a warship nor a civilian vessel.

Most importantly however is my first point notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"1 International law defines a warship as a ship belonging to the armed forces of a nation bearing the external markings distinguishing the character and nationality of such ships, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of that nation, whose name appears in the appropriate service list of officers, and is manned by a crew that is under regular armed forces discipline." https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e443#:~:text=1%20International%20law%20defines%20a,the%20appropriate%20service%20list%20of

It's a warship. It even carried out patrols and surveillance work in Northern Australian waters. As stated in the article. It was classified as a tug. But it did more than that, and that is mentioned in the article.

There are multiple reliable secondary sources. They are sourced in the article. The main source I used is the Royal Australian Navy, which can be said to be non-independent. Except it's the history centre, which is written independently using RAN archives. It's pretty difficult to write an article about a warship without using sources from those archives, while the secondary sources back up the information within.

I do not believe that this page should have been moved to draft. I will be reverting it, unless there are other reasons. This page was already reviewed. There was no need to remove it. Basetornado (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the ping on the DYK Talk page. I will wait before reverting it. Basetornado (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm wrong I would suggest either waiting for feedback from other DYK reviewers or submitting the article for review through articles for creation (I added a template to article to enable that). If other reviewers in the WT:DYK discussion tell me that I'm nuts or if it passes AFC, I'll accept that. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will wait and see what they say. It was already reviewed and cleared. But that doesn't mean anything it appears.~~ Basetornado (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for getting shitty about this. Pages being deleted for notability concerns is a major frustration of mine with this site. While in the past, I could see the general reason for it. In this case, I just saw a page that was very similar to quite a lot of other Naval pages being deleted for notability, and it was quite frustrating. In the end though, it got me to add a few more trove sources, so that's a plus. Basetornado (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My intent was never to try and get the article deleted, which is why I moved it to draft. We got there in the end. TarnishedPath^talk 14:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, as far as the sourcing goes, what I saw was that that all of the sources besides the navy.gov.au only mention the HMAS Emu in passing. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They mention the information listed within the article. Basetornado (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability guidelines demand more than sources verifying details in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is already notable as a commissioned warship. Basetornado (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Jayananda Warnaweera

On 23 October 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jayananda Warnaweera, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 04:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Peter 'Jungle' Phillips

Hello, Basetornado,

Thank you for creating Peter 'Jungle' Phillips.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great article! It needs some minor copy editing and maybe an additional source, but has no major problems. Just a note, only one of the sources supports the schizophrenia claim (two are cited).

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|HurricaneZeta}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Z E T A³ 16:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta: Hey, thank you! So I listed two sources on that paragraph, due to both of them including the liver cancer diagnosis. I removed the one that didn't include schizophrenia, because the rest of the information was already listed in one of the refs. Cheers Basetornado (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Basetornado (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]