This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russian battleship Potemkin 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 |
![]() | Russian battleship Potemkin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2016. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
It is usually written in simplified form Потемкин in Russia (instead of Потёмкин), but it is still pronounced in English "Potyomkin", not "Potyemkin" (in fact, it is pronounced "Patyomkin" because of unstressed "o") Pibwl 23:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Russian battleship Potemkin and Battleship Potemkin uprising are both integral to the history of the battleship. The content of this article is largely duplicated in the other anyway. They ought to be merged under the name of the ship. — Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It had a notable career in ww1 clashing with Goeben (as a part of a squadron) several times, each time forcing it to retire.
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.118.206 ( talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The timeline section to some extent contradicts the origins section. The timeline section is also complete uncited. Please can someone add proper citations to reliable sources. (Communist propaganda films do not count as reliable sources.) If the timeline section cannot be provided with citations to reliable sources, it will be deleted.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly an error. The muzzle velocity on naval guns of this sort is nowhere near the claimed 9160 fps. The 2792 claimed as "meters per second" might be plausible as "feet per second." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.187.149 ( talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As of this version from 2006 the article was stable and a non-stub in British English. -- John ( talk) 08:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The Soviet SSBN appear in "The Spy Who Loved Me" carrys the name Potemkin. -- 95.222.191.133 ( talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed in MILHIST conventions, so ignore at will:
Lingzhi♦ (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The transliteration that you're trying to use is not that used in any of my sources. What's yours?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The infobox is for the legal owners of the ship, neither of which were the mutineers or the Romanians. Both of them had de facto control, not de jure ownership, which remained with the Russian Empire throughout. The mutineers had no legal authority to transfer ownership to the Romanians, who only hoisted their flag as a matter of punctilio before returning it to the actual owners.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the IP you are dealing with here is User:Romanian-and-proud, who has been indeffed for sock-puppetry. If he resumes under another IP, let me know, and I'll block and/or protect the article as necessary. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead is ludicrous. The first dreadnought entered service in 1906 ( HMS Dreadnought (1906). I presume "the first Russian dreadnought" is what was meant, and have edited the article accordingly. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it state that the mutiny had any direct connection to the 1905 Russian Revolution. The naval mutinies had some of the same underlying causes, but had no significant effect on events in St Petersburg.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: Hi! To answer your edit-summary question, "Do you really think that most readers know what the fully expanded version of a tarp is?" Why yes, clearly I did. But then my high-schoolers consistently amaze me by not knowing words like "ewe" or "well-to-do," so maybe most readers don't know what a tarpaulin is. (Mercy on us!) I won't argue over the need for a blue link, but I will ask you to consider that if "tarpaulin" is too eggheaded (Who'da thunk?), why not go with the everyday tarp? Is "tarpaulin" a specialized word? If so, perhaps MOS:JARGON applies: Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. Happy New Year! YoPienso ( talk) 08:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. That's not how it works. The code used to generate the list in the infobox was deprecated a couple of years ago which is why all of the old versions in which it worked properly show the list error. And I believe the same is true for the language code.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
To start with the initial dispute over tarpaulin which I see is now resolved. I had never heard of a tarp until starting on wiki, I have always known it as a tarpaulin. It would be just as possible that a reader from another area which uses a variant of English would never have heard of a tarpaulin knowing it solely as a tarp hence it should be blue linked to cater for all users. This really is symptomatic of many of the proposals to delink terms, it is coming from one variant of English usage only - maggots yep known in US UK and I think AUS but is it known in India, rioting - I can recall in UK when a withdrawal of labour in a state run industry was legally a riot? The other nautical terms I think are appropriate to link in a nautical article - squadron and ram have specific nautical usages. Battleship is best linked as it has changed over time, although submarine is invariably linked in articles I would hold that everyone knows what a submarine is (we would not link ship) but the place to debate that is I would have thought would be the project, not one random drive by edit in a featured article. I feel sad that so much editor time has been spent on this, bold is fine but really instead of doubling down finding more links to dispute a better response would have been OK but I don't agree Lyndaship ( talk) 08:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Sturm, I know you saw my small edits on this page but do you mind to address these comments.
These are all of them. Normally I'd do them myself but because some are bigger issues like the images and because my English isn't one of the best I'd better ask those to you and then we can discuss them before starting an edit war. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 16:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russian battleship Potemkin 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 |
![]() | Russian battleship Potemkin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2016. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
It is usually written in simplified form Потемкин in Russia (instead of Потёмкин), but it is still pronounced in English "Potyomkin", not "Potyemkin" (in fact, it is pronounced "Patyomkin" because of unstressed "o") Pibwl 23:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Russian battleship Potemkin and Battleship Potemkin uprising are both integral to the history of the battleship. The content of this article is largely duplicated in the other anyway. They ought to be merged under the name of the ship. — Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It had a notable career in ww1 clashing with Goeben (as a part of a squadron) several times, each time forcing it to retire.
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.118.206 ( talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The timeline section to some extent contradicts the origins section. The timeline section is also complete uncited. Please can someone add proper citations to reliable sources. (Communist propaganda films do not count as reliable sources.) If the timeline section cannot be provided with citations to reliable sources, it will be deleted.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly an error. The muzzle velocity on naval guns of this sort is nowhere near the claimed 9160 fps. The 2792 claimed as "meters per second" might be plausible as "feet per second." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.187.149 ( talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As of this version from 2006 the article was stable and a non-stub in British English. -- John ( talk) 08:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The Soviet SSBN appear in "The Spy Who Loved Me" carrys the name Potemkin. -- 95.222.191.133 ( talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed in MILHIST conventions, so ignore at will:
Lingzhi♦ (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The transliteration that you're trying to use is not that used in any of my sources. What's yours?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The infobox is for the legal owners of the ship, neither of which were the mutineers or the Romanians. Both of them had de facto control, not de jure ownership, which remained with the Russian Empire throughout. The mutineers had no legal authority to transfer ownership to the Romanians, who only hoisted their flag as a matter of punctilio before returning it to the actual owners.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the IP you are dealing with here is User:Romanian-and-proud, who has been indeffed for sock-puppetry. If he resumes under another IP, let me know, and I'll block and/or protect the article as necessary. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead is ludicrous. The first dreadnought entered service in 1906 ( HMS Dreadnought (1906). I presume "the first Russian dreadnought" is what was meant, and have edited the article accordingly. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it state that the mutiny had any direct connection to the 1905 Russian Revolution. The naval mutinies had some of the same underlying causes, but had no significant effect on events in St Petersburg.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: Hi! To answer your edit-summary question, "Do you really think that most readers know what the fully expanded version of a tarp is?" Why yes, clearly I did. But then my high-schoolers consistently amaze me by not knowing words like "ewe" or "well-to-do," so maybe most readers don't know what a tarpaulin is. (Mercy on us!) I won't argue over the need for a blue link, but I will ask you to consider that if "tarpaulin" is too eggheaded (Who'da thunk?), why not go with the everyday tarp? Is "tarpaulin" a specialized word? If so, perhaps MOS:JARGON applies: Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. Happy New Year! YoPienso ( talk) 08:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. That's not how it works. The code used to generate the list in the infobox was deprecated a couple of years ago which is why all of the old versions in which it worked properly show the list error. And I believe the same is true for the language code.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
To start with the initial dispute over tarpaulin which I see is now resolved. I had never heard of a tarp until starting on wiki, I have always known it as a tarpaulin. It would be just as possible that a reader from another area which uses a variant of English would never have heard of a tarpaulin knowing it solely as a tarp hence it should be blue linked to cater for all users. This really is symptomatic of many of the proposals to delink terms, it is coming from one variant of English usage only - maggots yep known in US UK and I think AUS but is it known in India, rioting - I can recall in UK when a withdrawal of labour in a state run industry was legally a riot? The other nautical terms I think are appropriate to link in a nautical article - squadron and ram have specific nautical usages. Battleship is best linked as it has changed over time, although submarine is invariably linked in articles I would hold that everyone knows what a submarine is (we would not link ship) but the place to debate that is I would have thought would be the project, not one random drive by edit in a featured article. I feel sad that so much editor time has been spent on this, bold is fine but really instead of doubling down finding more links to dispute a better response would have been OK but I don't agree Lyndaship ( talk) 08:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Sturm, I know you saw my small edits on this page but do you mind to address these comments.
These are all of them. Normally I'd do them myself but because some are bigger issues like the images and because my English isn't one of the best I'd better ask those to you and then we can discuss them before starting an edit war. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 16:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)