This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Harpoon (1942) 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear Sirs, we're working at the Battaglia di mezzo giugno in the Italian Wikipedia, and we've some problems about the rank of Alban Curteis. I see you've written "Vice-Admiral" in this voice, but have you got some references? Thank you. -- Zerosei ( talk) 07:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The image is entitled the sinking of HMS Bedouin. Clearly Bedouin would have been unable to operate her AA armament with such an extreme degree of list yet, we know that she shot down the aircraft that sank her, so the image must show Bedouin after the torpedo hit. Damwiki1 ( talk) 01:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
My only concern regarding this pic was that your otherwise reasonable claim had been based just on common sense, and not on reliable sources.
I found, however, a 1988 Italian seminar which supports your point of view ( Le Fonti per La Storia Militare Italiana in Etá Contemporanea, p. 130). In few words, the paper states that the photo was taken by a Macchi C.202 fighter just a couple of minutes after the torpedo struck HMS Bedouin. There are a number of issues (whether or not the shadow on the hull is the actual torpedo hit, whether or not the ship took water and was listing before the air strike) that are still in question, but these are too long for a talk page, and somewhat off topic.-- Darius ( talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
P/S: Captain Scurfield claims in his posthumous memories that the SM-79 was shot down by a single machine gun, thus the degree of list at the time is immaterial.-- Darius ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Information in the infobox should reflect the article and be cited there, making citations in the infobox redundant. Keith-264 ( talk) 01:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
How can this be misinterpreted? No hair-splitting in the infobox, See Aftermath section is the thing to put in it given your comments. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Realised that as I added material to Vigorous, it was identical to that for Harpoon since they were part of Julius so have dropped the Background section in. NB it's in sfns, does anyone mind if I change the others from <> references? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No point in duplicating flags in the infobox. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Graeme, I haven't seen quotes without a space between the text and the quote before, have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Damwiki1: Found some citations, ce the oob added a bit of text and created a casualties section, leaving a citation needed tag for the Italian losses. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Harpoon (1942) 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear Sirs, we're working at the Battaglia di mezzo giugno in the Italian Wikipedia, and we've some problems about the rank of Alban Curteis. I see you've written "Vice-Admiral" in this voice, but have you got some references? Thank you. -- Zerosei ( talk) 07:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The image is entitled the sinking of HMS Bedouin. Clearly Bedouin would have been unable to operate her AA armament with such an extreme degree of list yet, we know that she shot down the aircraft that sank her, so the image must show Bedouin after the torpedo hit. Damwiki1 ( talk) 01:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
My only concern regarding this pic was that your otherwise reasonable claim had been based just on common sense, and not on reliable sources.
I found, however, a 1988 Italian seminar which supports your point of view ( Le Fonti per La Storia Militare Italiana in Etá Contemporanea, p. 130). In few words, the paper states that the photo was taken by a Macchi C.202 fighter just a couple of minutes after the torpedo struck HMS Bedouin. There are a number of issues (whether or not the shadow on the hull is the actual torpedo hit, whether or not the ship took water and was listing before the air strike) that are still in question, but these are too long for a talk page, and somewhat off topic.-- Darius ( talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
P/S: Captain Scurfield claims in his posthumous memories that the SM-79 was shot down by a single machine gun, thus the degree of list at the time is immaterial.-- Darius ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Information in the infobox should reflect the article and be cited there, making citations in the infobox redundant. Keith-264 ( talk) 01:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
How can this be misinterpreted? No hair-splitting in the infobox, See Aftermath section is the thing to put in it given your comments. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Realised that as I added material to Vigorous, it was identical to that for Harpoon since they were part of Julius so have dropped the Background section in. NB it's in sfns, does anyone mind if I change the others from <> references? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No point in duplicating flags in the infobox. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Graeme, I haven't seen quotes without a space between the text and the quote before, have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Damwiki1: Found some citations, ce the oob added a bit of text and created a casualties section, leaving a citation needed tag for the Italian losses. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)