![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a comment in the HMS Hood article that the RN was well-trained in fighting at night by WW2, but I've never heard this before. Has one else? And if so, can you provide a cite? I'd like some confirmation one way before I delete the statement.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help).{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) --
Simon Harley (
Talk |
Library). 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
With the new logo up I have a problem in that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan/navbox is now causing the page to align too far to the right; its off screen on my monitor and I have a feeling that there may be others who are experiencing this as well. Is there some way we can correct this? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I was updating the tally to reflect Kaga's promotion and I'm now curious about the "necessary FA" tally. Which ones are "necessary"? What is the difference between them and the rest of the FAs?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a light bulb moment, and I thought I would share it with all of you. Given that this is the best Special Project in the system at the moment I would propose that we redesign the special project pages to look like those the milhist page. Doing this has several benefits, among them the fact that we could establish a showcase page for our GA, A, FA, FPC, and FT groups we have, as well as allow us to create dedicated subpages for the ships and ship classes, weaponry, biographies, battles & campaigns. Moving all this information to dedicate pages would cleanup the main page for visitors, and allow us to keep the size down. Additionally, we could create a dedicated awards page to display the standard barnstars and medals that can be earned as well as those who have received the Titan's Cross.
If adopted, this would also earn us bragging rights (which, of course, are the best kind of rights). What do you guys think about this? Should we pursue this, or just let it be? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just hit another issue: measuring progress. As it stands, any editor who upgrades the class of an article is responsible to edit the class for that article on its talk page, on that phase's article list, on the main project bar, and possibly the portal showcase if it's GA or higher. Now, with each phase to be on its own page, that means that a member would have to edit all that, PLUS the overall OMT progress bar, making a total of 4 or 5 tedious administrative edits just to tell the world that USS Schmuckatelli was upgraded from stub to start class, probably taking longer than working on the article itself was.
I was thinking that we could centralize the progress into a single sub-page, but then we couldn't transclude them to the phase pages that way... so the choice is to increase the administrative burden, or not have a good progress metric. I suppose that I could go through the phase updates once a week and update the overall progress bar. I'm still tinkering, maybe I'll come up with something. bahamut0013 words deeds 16:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a good look at some layouts, and while I'm going to start some preliminary work later, I have to pose this: why don't we come up with a logo like WPMILHIST has? Since File:BS Bismarck.png is the logo we use for the portal links, why don't we gold tone it like File:WPMILHIST-composite-logo.png and add some matching text? Nothing too extravagent, but elegant and fitting. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This task was finally taken at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#OMT_logo. The only thing I need is background transparency, but if you all want to make a suggestion, go for it before Mono is finished and closes out the request. bahamut0013 words deeds 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, take a look at "Topics in Chronicling America - The Dreadnought Battleship and the Pre-WW I Naval Arms Race"! It's got links to contemporary newspapers on the topic as well, which is cool, becuase I think only the NYT has free archives that go back that far. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any interest in codifying a coordinator to lead OMT, since we have grown to the scale of a major task force. I personally think of Tom as kind of our unofficial coordinator, but that's just me. bahamut0013 words deeds 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
To what extent should we include naval slang in the effort? For example, I'm told that US battleships had Gedunk bars that served treats to the sailors and marines, but that sort of seems like something we would only be concerned with in a sideswipe sense, ,not a head on sense. What do guys think? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(Also, I'm honored to be considered for the position of special project coordinator here, but at the moment I think we can safely pass on the position for now. Given the number of coordinators that are a part of the effort already I think we have all the needed bases covered.) TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created Category:Operation Majestic Titan to serve as a central location for things related to this special project; if anyone has a bit of free time, could you please go through and put all the relevant subpages into the category? Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have Campbell's book on Jutland handy? I need to know when Tiger's Q and X turrets were hit. Was it before Beatty turned away at 3:57 UTC or later when he turned to close again?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I just checked the progress table (currently hidden here)to after an article was promoted to FA and found to my surprise that the sum of all articles in the project is 545 if you count the numbers in the table, not 542 as the bottom says. Also the progress bar is at 39 FA/FL articles, while the table says 40. Errors like this are perfectly understandable, as the table has to be manually updated everytime something changes, which is a total pain given the size of the project. Therefore I propose to switch to an automatic table, like all the taskforces do. Afterall the number of articles in our scope is bigger than some of the taskforces and it would save OMTbot a lot of work. Yoenit ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Oke, three things. Firstly I would support modifying the MIlHIST template. Secondly, I don't care whether it should be visible or not. Lastly, I really don't give a shit what the task forces have to say about it. We are building an encyclopedia here, not holding a popularity contest about who gets to be on the template.
Yoenit (
talk) 09:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems to have died, time to start it up again. A little straw poll to see if anybody objects.
Proposal: Add a visible parameter for OMT to MILHIST template, similar to those used by the taskforces, to allow categorization and possible bot-automated updates.
The main purpose is to allow us to automatically updates of progress tables and lists. A visible parameter would also increase the knowledge of the project and help us find editors interested in the special project.
Assuming that everyone here still wants to proceed with adding OMT tracking to {{ WPMILHIST}}, I'd like to know whether people would prefer:
Once we have an answer, I'll proceed with generating the needed template code. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have a (working?) implementation ready for testing at {{ WPMILHIST/sandbox}} that works as follows:
I would appreciate it if people here could test out the sandbox version and let me know (a) whether everything works as intended and (b) whether you'd like any changes to the functionality before we go live with this version. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the links to the phase page; please test this out.
One question that occurs to me is whether we need to break down the unclassified (Phase ?) articles down by class. Do you anticipate that articles will remain in that category for a significant period of time, or will that category only be used to catch tagging errors? In other words, will every newly tagged article be assigned to a phase? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved the template changes over to the live banner and created the necessary categories. Please go ahead and start tagging articles, preferably for all the phases, so that we can verify everything is working correctly and trigger the assessment bot to create the needed statistics for every phase. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we know how often the bot cycles through? The log is showing activity but the table is not showing up. - MBK 004 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I currently have German Type UB I submarine up at FAC and someone asked if the Historical Handbook of World Navies. is a RS. I know that this is about U-boats and not BBs but I've used the source for other Austro-Hungarian Battleships before and I'd like your opinions on this matter so I know whether to replace it on any of the article that I write or if it's acceptable and I can keep it. Thanks,-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this project intend to include the Cyclops class of 1871? They certainly would not now be considered to be battleships, but were built at a time when the definitions were somewhat fuzzy. HMS Warrior, for example was described as a fourth-rate and as a frigate. If the Cyclops ships should be here I can create them. Photographs may be difficult. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to stir things up a little (tongue-in-cheek) could I say that any ship which was intended to lie in the line-of-battle is, by definition, a battleship. Although not all ironclades were so intended. But then again a number of ironclads, such as the Cyclops class, were intended or considered fit to lie in the battle line of other countries. Changing tack, I notice that we have a disappointingly large number of stub-class articles here. I will get onto improving them, at least to start-class and hopefully beyond, tomorrow. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all is Naval history.net classed as a reliable source ?-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi All i have reworked the List of battleships of the Royal Navy to the same format as List of battleships of Germany. All the material is taken from the ships articles and is about 99% unreferenced. Not being an expert in the subject can anyone suggest a good book on RN battleships ? and I would appreciate some advice on how much details goes in the propulsion sections. At present the List of battleships of the Royal Navy#Admiral class has:
While the List of battleships of the Royal Navy#Queen Elizabeth class has:
I suspect it should be closer to the Queen Elizabeth example ? I will try and get some text added to each section as well.-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 03:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The following are not units of the Iron Duke class and should be given their own section as unique vessels: HMS Agincourt, HMS Canada, and HMS Erin. Also, HMS Canada had 14 inch guns opposed to 13.5s, and Agincourt had 12s. Dreadnought was not a "class" per se and should be listed as a single ship the same for Vanguard (what I'm saying is do away with the main links to class articles here). You are also missing two classes: Lion class battleship and N3 class battleship. - MBK 004 04:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
List of pre-Dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy and List of Dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy are good ideas.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The post Dreadnought is still 61000 bytes but more manageable - one note the meagre sources I had means the the pre Dreadnought article is unreferenced and the post Dreadnought has exhausted what little I had to hand. So any help appreciated. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I know this is outside our specific scope at the moment, but I am asking if a few good men would be willing to take on the task of getting the protected cruiser USS Olympia (C-6) up to featured status. News reports state that the ship is in dire need of assistance and may be scrapped or sunk if funding is not found soon, and since Olympia is a gun ship and a rather famous one at the that I feel compelled to see if we can lend some assistance to the cause; a main page appearance for Admiral Dew's flagship may help generate interest in the ship, which in turn could help the museum people spread the word about the ship's current status and and badly need repairs. I'd sweeten the deal by offering a Ship's barnstar to the editors who get the cruiser to A-class status and WikiChevrons to the editors who get the ship to FA status. How about it? TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've requested Musicant's U.S. armored cruisers : a design and operational history from ILL which should provide the technical history of the ship once it arrives in a couple of weeks.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Before I do anything else, I wanted to share this piece of information with everyone here: my dad's half of the family is apparently well connected to the dod and other folks of similarly minded interest, and according to them the plan as it currently stands is to have Olympia scrapped at the November if the funds are not raised in time. Given this, perhaps we should try and get her up on veterans day rather than on the anniversary of the battle of manilla bay. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Aleksandar Berić is up for deletion at the request of the original author, a realative. From what it sounds like, this captain had his ironclad monitor Drava in one hell of a fight during the Invasion of Yugoslavia. It sounds to me that the individual might not be notable, but the incident and/or ship are. If anyone can help in expanding the article or converting it, that would be awesome. bahamut0013 words deeds 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why you guys are going for battleships before air carriers? The latter are more notable ships, more expensive, and more prestigious. Nergaal ( talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You could work on hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers such as the Ise class battleships and various US (and British?) hybrid proposals to keep everyone happy as a compromise solution. Alternately, I've started an article on the US Flight deck cruiser proposals (currently a stub) and developing it would make everyone equally unhappy as they were neither proper cruisers or proper carriers (or a good idea). Nick-D ( talk) 11:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm for tugs, U-boats, fireboats or royal yachts. Buggie111 ( talk) 23:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Im wondering why the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye is not listed in the project. Though built as a center-battery ironclad she was later refitted into a predreadnaught like vessel and various sources like this one for example [ [4]] Assari Tewfik was also rebuilt about the same time as Mesudiye, but i am uncertain of the details of her configuration after her refit. Mesudiye's armament and configuration changed completely and was similar in power and greater in displacement than many of the battleships initially built as such of the time, such as the USS Texas (1892), Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr II, and SMS Habsburg for instance. XavierGreen ( talk) 04:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm ready to submit the GTC on the Courageous-class battlecruisers, but I'm not sure which article to use for the topic lead. They were built and served in WWI as battlecruisers, but spent the bulk of their careers as aircraft carriers so an argument can be made for either to be used. Now, perhaps this is the wrong forum considering our topic (and the thread above!), but I thought that I'd solicit opinions here as well.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why did Glorious not have a pennant number? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'm going to go with Parsec's first suggestion. But now I'm wondering exactly how to name the topic. Courageous class battlecruisers / aircraft carriers or somesuch? Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed lately that a ton of extremely short articles of battleships/battlecruisers get through GA. Do you guys really think that all of them are notable enough to warrant a separate article? If yes, please do something. To me it seems like many could do well with a merge into the parent class article. You guys should set some thresholds to encourage users to put more information into the ship articles than just the bare minimum. On this aspect alone I feel like if they were put though a review process (like AfD), some of them could actually get merged into the parent class because they add very little past the class article. Nergaal ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone has not seen it the Mississippi class battleship A class review has been opened. I don't believe the author is a member of OMT and he would appreciate any assistance. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a comment in the HMS Hood article that the RN was well-trained in fighting at night by WW2, but I've never heard this before. Has one else? And if so, can you provide a cite? I'd like some confirmation one way before I delete the statement.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help).{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) --
Simon Harley (
Talk |
Library). 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
With the new logo up I have a problem in that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan/navbox is now causing the page to align too far to the right; its off screen on my monitor and I have a feeling that there may be others who are experiencing this as well. Is there some way we can correct this? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I was updating the tally to reflect Kaga's promotion and I'm now curious about the "necessary FA" tally. Which ones are "necessary"? What is the difference between them and the rest of the FAs?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a light bulb moment, and I thought I would share it with all of you. Given that this is the best Special Project in the system at the moment I would propose that we redesign the special project pages to look like those the milhist page. Doing this has several benefits, among them the fact that we could establish a showcase page for our GA, A, FA, FPC, and FT groups we have, as well as allow us to create dedicated subpages for the ships and ship classes, weaponry, biographies, battles & campaigns. Moving all this information to dedicate pages would cleanup the main page for visitors, and allow us to keep the size down. Additionally, we could create a dedicated awards page to display the standard barnstars and medals that can be earned as well as those who have received the Titan's Cross.
If adopted, this would also earn us bragging rights (which, of course, are the best kind of rights). What do you guys think about this? Should we pursue this, or just let it be? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just hit another issue: measuring progress. As it stands, any editor who upgrades the class of an article is responsible to edit the class for that article on its talk page, on that phase's article list, on the main project bar, and possibly the portal showcase if it's GA or higher. Now, with each phase to be on its own page, that means that a member would have to edit all that, PLUS the overall OMT progress bar, making a total of 4 or 5 tedious administrative edits just to tell the world that USS Schmuckatelli was upgraded from stub to start class, probably taking longer than working on the article itself was.
I was thinking that we could centralize the progress into a single sub-page, but then we couldn't transclude them to the phase pages that way... so the choice is to increase the administrative burden, or not have a good progress metric. I suppose that I could go through the phase updates once a week and update the overall progress bar. I'm still tinkering, maybe I'll come up with something. bahamut0013 words deeds 16:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a good look at some layouts, and while I'm going to start some preliminary work later, I have to pose this: why don't we come up with a logo like WPMILHIST has? Since File:BS Bismarck.png is the logo we use for the portal links, why don't we gold tone it like File:WPMILHIST-composite-logo.png and add some matching text? Nothing too extravagent, but elegant and fitting. bahamut0013 words deeds 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This task was finally taken at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#OMT_logo. The only thing I need is background transparency, but if you all want to make a suggestion, go for it before Mono is finished and closes out the request. bahamut0013 words deeds 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, take a look at "Topics in Chronicling America - The Dreadnought Battleship and the Pre-WW I Naval Arms Race"! It's got links to contemporary newspapers on the topic as well, which is cool, becuase I think only the NYT has free archives that go back that far. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any interest in codifying a coordinator to lead OMT, since we have grown to the scale of a major task force. I personally think of Tom as kind of our unofficial coordinator, but that's just me. bahamut0013 words deeds 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
To what extent should we include naval slang in the effort? For example, I'm told that US battleships had Gedunk bars that served treats to the sailors and marines, but that sort of seems like something we would only be concerned with in a sideswipe sense, ,not a head on sense. What do guys think? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(Also, I'm honored to be considered for the position of special project coordinator here, but at the moment I think we can safely pass on the position for now. Given the number of coordinators that are a part of the effort already I think we have all the needed bases covered.) TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created Category:Operation Majestic Titan to serve as a central location for things related to this special project; if anyone has a bit of free time, could you please go through and put all the relevant subpages into the category? Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have Campbell's book on Jutland handy? I need to know when Tiger's Q and X turrets were hit. Was it before Beatty turned away at 3:57 UTC or later when he turned to close again?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I just checked the progress table (currently hidden here)to after an article was promoted to FA and found to my surprise that the sum of all articles in the project is 545 if you count the numbers in the table, not 542 as the bottom says. Also the progress bar is at 39 FA/FL articles, while the table says 40. Errors like this are perfectly understandable, as the table has to be manually updated everytime something changes, which is a total pain given the size of the project. Therefore I propose to switch to an automatic table, like all the taskforces do. Afterall the number of articles in our scope is bigger than some of the taskforces and it would save OMTbot a lot of work. Yoenit ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Oke, three things. Firstly I would support modifying the MIlHIST template. Secondly, I don't care whether it should be visible or not. Lastly, I really don't give a shit what the task forces have to say about it. We are building an encyclopedia here, not holding a popularity contest about who gets to be on the template.
Yoenit (
talk) 09:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems to have died, time to start it up again. A little straw poll to see if anybody objects.
Proposal: Add a visible parameter for OMT to MILHIST template, similar to those used by the taskforces, to allow categorization and possible bot-automated updates.
The main purpose is to allow us to automatically updates of progress tables and lists. A visible parameter would also increase the knowledge of the project and help us find editors interested in the special project.
Assuming that everyone here still wants to proceed with adding OMT tracking to {{ WPMILHIST}}, I'd like to know whether people would prefer:
Once we have an answer, I'll proceed with generating the needed template code. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have a (working?) implementation ready for testing at {{ WPMILHIST/sandbox}} that works as follows:
I would appreciate it if people here could test out the sandbox version and let me know (a) whether everything works as intended and (b) whether you'd like any changes to the functionality before we go live with this version. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the links to the phase page; please test this out.
One question that occurs to me is whether we need to break down the unclassified (Phase ?) articles down by class. Do you anticipate that articles will remain in that category for a significant period of time, or will that category only be used to catch tagging errors? In other words, will every newly tagged article be assigned to a phase? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved the template changes over to the live banner and created the necessary categories. Please go ahead and start tagging articles, preferably for all the phases, so that we can verify everything is working correctly and trigger the assessment bot to create the needed statistics for every phase. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we know how often the bot cycles through? The log is showing activity but the table is not showing up. - MBK 004 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I currently have German Type UB I submarine up at FAC and someone asked if the Historical Handbook of World Navies. is a RS. I know that this is about U-boats and not BBs but I've used the source for other Austro-Hungarian Battleships before and I'd like your opinions on this matter so I know whether to replace it on any of the article that I write or if it's acceptable and I can keep it. Thanks,-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this project intend to include the Cyclops class of 1871? They certainly would not now be considered to be battleships, but were built at a time when the definitions were somewhat fuzzy. HMS Warrior, for example was described as a fourth-rate and as a frigate. If the Cyclops ships should be here I can create them. Photographs may be difficult. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to stir things up a little (tongue-in-cheek) could I say that any ship which was intended to lie in the line-of-battle is, by definition, a battleship. Although not all ironclades were so intended. But then again a number of ironclads, such as the Cyclops class, were intended or considered fit to lie in the battle line of other countries. Changing tack, I notice that we have a disappointingly large number of stub-class articles here. I will get onto improving them, at least to start-class and hopefully beyond, tomorrow. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all is Naval history.net classed as a reliable source ?-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi All i have reworked the List of battleships of the Royal Navy to the same format as List of battleships of Germany. All the material is taken from the ships articles and is about 99% unreferenced. Not being an expert in the subject can anyone suggest a good book on RN battleships ? and I would appreciate some advice on how much details goes in the propulsion sections. At present the List of battleships of the Royal Navy#Admiral class has:
While the List of battleships of the Royal Navy#Queen Elizabeth class has:
I suspect it should be closer to the Queen Elizabeth example ? I will try and get some text added to each section as well.-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 03:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The following are not units of the Iron Duke class and should be given their own section as unique vessels: HMS Agincourt, HMS Canada, and HMS Erin. Also, HMS Canada had 14 inch guns opposed to 13.5s, and Agincourt had 12s. Dreadnought was not a "class" per se and should be listed as a single ship the same for Vanguard (what I'm saying is do away with the main links to class articles here). You are also missing two classes: Lion class battleship and N3 class battleship. - MBK 004 04:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
List of pre-Dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy and List of Dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy are good ideas.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The post Dreadnought is still 61000 bytes but more manageable - one note the meagre sources I had means the the pre Dreadnought article is unreferenced and the post Dreadnought has exhausted what little I had to hand. So any help appreciated. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I know this is outside our specific scope at the moment, but I am asking if a few good men would be willing to take on the task of getting the protected cruiser USS Olympia (C-6) up to featured status. News reports state that the ship is in dire need of assistance and may be scrapped or sunk if funding is not found soon, and since Olympia is a gun ship and a rather famous one at the that I feel compelled to see if we can lend some assistance to the cause; a main page appearance for Admiral Dew's flagship may help generate interest in the ship, which in turn could help the museum people spread the word about the ship's current status and and badly need repairs. I'd sweeten the deal by offering a Ship's barnstar to the editors who get the cruiser to A-class status and WikiChevrons to the editors who get the ship to FA status. How about it? TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've requested Musicant's U.S. armored cruisers : a design and operational history from ILL which should provide the technical history of the ship once it arrives in a couple of weeks.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Before I do anything else, I wanted to share this piece of information with everyone here: my dad's half of the family is apparently well connected to the dod and other folks of similarly minded interest, and according to them the plan as it currently stands is to have Olympia scrapped at the November if the funds are not raised in time. Given this, perhaps we should try and get her up on veterans day rather than on the anniversary of the battle of manilla bay. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Aleksandar Berić is up for deletion at the request of the original author, a realative. From what it sounds like, this captain had his ironclad monitor Drava in one hell of a fight during the Invasion of Yugoslavia. It sounds to me that the individual might not be notable, but the incident and/or ship are. If anyone can help in expanding the article or converting it, that would be awesome. bahamut0013 words deeds 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why you guys are going for battleships before air carriers? The latter are more notable ships, more expensive, and more prestigious. Nergaal ( talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You could work on hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers such as the Ise class battleships and various US (and British?) hybrid proposals to keep everyone happy as a compromise solution. Alternately, I've started an article on the US Flight deck cruiser proposals (currently a stub) and developing it would make everyone equally unhappy as they were neither proper cruisers or proper carriers (or a good idea). Nick-D ( talk) 11:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm for tugs, U-boats, fireboats or royal yachts. Buggie111 ( talk) 23:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Im wondering why the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye is not listed in the project. Though built as a center-battery ironclad she was later refitted into a predreadnaught like vessel and various sources like this one for example [ [4]] Assari Tewfik was also rebuilt about the same time as Mesudiye, but i am uncertain of the details of her configuration after her refit. Mesudiye's armament and configuration changed completely and was similar in power and greater in displacement than many of the battleships initially built as such of the time, such as the USS Texas (1892), Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr II, and SMS Habsburg for instance. XavierGreen ( talk) 04:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm ready to submit the GTC on the Courageous-class battlecruisers, but I'm not sure which article to use for the topic lead. They were built and served in WWI as battlecruisers, but spent the bulk of their careers as aircraft carriers so an argument can be made for either to be used. Now, perhaps this is the wrong forum considering our topic (and the thread above!), but I thought that I'd solicit opinions here as well.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why did Glorious not have a pennant number? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'm going to go with Parsec's first suggestion. But now I'm wondering exactly how to name the topic. Courageous class battlecruisers / aircraft carriers or somesuch? Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed lately that a ton of extremely short articles of battleships/battlecruisers get through GA. Do you guys really think that all of them are notable enough to warrant a separate article? If yes, please do something. To me it seems like many could do well with a merge into the parent class article. You guys should set some thresholds to encourage users to put more information into the ship articles than just the bare minimum. On this aspect alone I feel like if they were put though a review process (like AfD), some of them could actually get merged into the parent class because they add very little past the class article. Nergaal ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone has not seen it the Mississippi class battleship A class review has been opened. I don't believe the author is a member of OMT and he would appreciate any assistance. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)