This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battlecruiser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Battlecruiser has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
Battlecruiser is the main article in the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I've done some work cleaning this up regarding conversions and general tidying up, but I have deleted the WW2 sections that solely involved the German pocket battleships and the Scharnhorst class. I've left the section covering them in the design section, as well as the Dunkerques until we have a better consensus about what to do about them. Personally, I think that all we need is a bit explaining why they aren't really battlecruisers, no matter what ignorant authors call them. This needs to be resolved soon as we're only a couple FA or FL class articles away from being able to submit the largest Featured Topic in all of Wikipedia. Admittedly we only need to get it past GA for the nonce, but we need to decide the basics now.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope this helps with further development of the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.... I just read this long, thorough, interesting article, but I was struck by what seems like a major omission. At the end, it currently says "In spite of the fact that after World War II, most navies abandoned the battleship and battlecruiser..." So -why- were battlecruisers/(& battleships?)(I'm no expert here) abandoned? Can that info be included? thanks. (This is the first time I've entered anything on a Wikipedia talk page!) Sqzx ( talk) 06:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
In Battlecruiser#World War II, an editor is wanting to strike out reference to the Yavuz (battleship) in the last sentence of the first paragraph, shown here as struck through:
and is insisting on the grounds that Yavuz did not participate in the war.
My take is that "survived the war" means "existed at the end of the war" and would apply to battlecruisers in service with Argentina and other neutrals. The editor disagrees, thinking (I gather) that "survived the war" means "participated in and survived the war". (FWIW Turkey was technically a belligerent in WWII, but only for a brief period at the very end, and the Yavuz did not fight and AFAIK probably didn't even leave port or act as a potential counter to local Axis naval units (there were none left), so it's reasonable to treat it like a neutral power ship IMO.)
So impasse, the editor is invited to make his case, and I'm also interested in what our colleagues think, is the Yavuz in the class of battlecruisers to "survive the war" or not, or maybe the sentence should be rewritten? Herostratus ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
That could work; the most important thing, I think, is to differentiate the Alaskas from the older ships.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
From the lede:
Is this statement backed up by sources? Because it does not make sense on its own. If the division between battleship and battlecruiser would have be found useful, "improvements in armor design and propulsion" would have created bigger and faster battleships, and battlecruisers that are faster and less well armored then those improved battleships. The union of the two types into fast battleships just demonstrates that the differentiation was no longer considered useful.
So again, is there a source? - 91.10.25.190 ( talk) 06:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
> and chase down any ship with lesser armament;
That seems wrong. They can chase down a speedboat with no guns? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:602:9000:6A:616B:EAFA:9C5D:8769 (
talk)
20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battlecruiser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Battlecruiser has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
Battlecruiser is the main article in the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I've done some work cleaning this up regarding conversions and general tidying up, but I have deleted the WW2 sections that solely involved the German pocket battleships and the Scharnhorst class. I've left the section covering them in the design section, as well as the Dunkerques until we have a better consensus about what to do about them. Personally, I think that all we need is a bit explaining why they aren't really battlecruisers, no matter what ignorant authors call them. This needs to be resolved soon as we're only a couple FA or FL class articles away from being able to submit the largest Featured Topic in all of Wikipedia. Admittedly we only need to get it past GA for the nonce, but we need to decide the basics now.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope this helps with further development of the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.... I just read this long, thorough, interesting article, but I was struck by what seems like a major omission. At the end, it currently says "In spite of the fact that after World War II, most navies abandoned the battleship and battlecruiser..." So -why- were battlecruisers/(& battleships?)(I'm no expert here) abandoned? Can that info be included? thanks. (This is the first time I've entered anything on a Wikipedia talk page!) Sqzx ( talk) 06:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
In Battlecruiser#World War II, an editor is wanting to strike out reference to the Yavuz (battleship) in the last sentence of the first paragraph, shown here as struck through:
and is insisting on the grounds that Yavuz did not participate in the war.
My take is that "survived the war" means "existed at the end of the war" and would apply to battlecruisers in service with Argentina and other neutrals. The editor disagrees, thinking (I gather) that "survived the war" means "participated in and survived the war". (FWIW Turkey was technically a belligerent in WWII, but only for a brief period at the very end, and the Yavuz did not fight and AFAIK probably didn't even leave port or act as a potential counter to local Axis naval units (there were none left), so it's reasonable to treat it like a neutral power ship IMO.)
So impasse, the editor is invited to make his case, and I'm also interested in what our colleagues think, is the Yavuz in the class of battlecruisers to "survive the war" or not, or maybe the sentence should be rewritten? Herostratus ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
That could work; the most important thing, I think, is to differentiate the Alaskas from the older ships.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
From the lede:
Is this statement backed up by sources? Because it does not make sense on its own. If the division between battleship and battlecruiser would have be found useful, "improvements in armor design and propulsion" would have created bigger and faster battleships, and battlecruisers that are faster and less well armored then those improved battleships. The union of the two types into fast battleships just demonstrates that the differentiation was no longer considered useful.
So again, is there a source? - 91.10.25.190 ( talk) 06:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
> and chase down any ship with lesser armament;
That seems wrong. They can chase down a speedboat with no guns? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:602:9000:6A:616B:EAFA:9C5D:8769 (
talk)
20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)