Jump to content

Talk:HMS Royal Oak (08)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHMS Royal Oak (08) 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 15, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 14, 2009, October 14, 2010, October 14, 2014, and October 14, 2019.
Current status: Featured article


Untitled

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The proposed move was logical, not controversial, and not blocked, so I made the move myself. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

HMS Royal Oak (08) → HMS Royal Oak (1914) … Rationale: All the other ships named HMS Royal Oak are at titles with the following format: "HMS Royal Oak (abcd)", where "abcd" is the year of launch. It seems odd that this article should be different. HMS Royal Oak (1914) is already occupied by a redirect so I don't know how to move it. — Tamino 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Much of the current text appears to have been copied from here, though it is not clear whether copyright is asserted on that work. I am intending to make a substantial expansion/rewrite of the article, so this potential issue will be removed in due course. — BillC talk 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All such material has now been removed. — BillC talk 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article.

[edit]

This is a great article, and should definitely get GA status. Jolb 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

[edit]

It's an interesting read, and kudos to Bill who seems to have done most of it. I've assessed and passed this against the criteria.

1. Well written - pass
2. Factually accurate and verifiable - pass
3. Broad in its coverage - pass
4. NPOV - pass
5. Stable - pass
6. Images - pass

A couple of other things though - anything you can use from the London Gazette? Can you convert the references to {{cite web}} or other specialised templates - not the book references though? The auto peer review javascript program says:

Does Donitz's book have an ISBN, or can you link it to the same book on googlebooks? Bit more work and I think it would be a good featured article. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tackled the above points with the exception of external copyedit review. I will be passing the article out for peer review shortly. — BillC talk 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll of Honour

[edit]

There may be a way to present the Roll of Honour in a way that does not take up so much room, e.g. as a table of 5 or 6 columns. Maybe another editor could help here. 81.156.63.69 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roll of Honour is inappropriate here. An encyclopaedia article is a summary of a topic. This same list is presented in at least one of the web pages linked in the External Links section, and that is a much more appropriate means of doing so. You might like to present your idea at WikiProject Military history, and see if you get any support there for it.— BillC talk 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inappropriate addition to the article. What value does it add? How does it increase understanding of the topic? Why can't it simply exist as a page linked to amongst the rest of the external links? Please do not continue to re-add this content without first discussing it here. Carom 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. Please do not keep removing the list without consensus. 81.156.63.69 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that Wikipedia is not a memorial and we do not list full casualty reports for other battles, engagements or conflicts. Also, please present some positive reasoning for the inclusion of this information. Carom 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An offer to undergo dispute resolution has been made. — BillC talk 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Government in 1937

[edit]

Does "Spanish Government forces" in the Spanish Civil War section refer to the Republicans or to the Nationalists? The linked article Spanish State refers to the 1939-1978 period, so I assume it's Franco's Nationalists, but some ambiguity remains. In 1937 the Republicans , as far as I remember, were still acknowledged by Britain as the legitimate Spanish Government. L'omo del batocio 09:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let me check my sources and clarify that section. — BillC talk 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I've got:
  • Royal Oak's log 02-Feb-1937:
11:35 3 foreign aircraft sighted and 3 bombs fell 3 cables off star'd [starboard] bow, two exploding, approx posn. 36°10'N 04°42'W. co [course] 090° sp. [speed] 6kts
11:45 bombing heard on coast to northward
12:25 a/co [altered course] 270° sp. 8kts.
  • The next item is a note verbale from the British chargé d'affaires based at the 'British Embassy, Valencia'. It describes the aircraft as having 'Government markings'
  • The third item is the Admiralty report on the incident, which concludes that "the aircraft [were]... Spanish Government machines who mistake HMS Royal Oak for an insurgent warship..."
From these, and given that Valencia was the Republicans' capital during the Spanish Civil War, and spent time besieged by Franco's Nationalists, it looks pretty clear that the sources are referring to the Republicans as 'the Government', and the Nationalists as the 'insurgents'. My error, then: a bad link in the article. I've changed it to point instead to the Second Spanish Republic; if you think there's a better link, or the article needs rewording, please go ahead. Regards, — BillC talk 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added image Fleetsignal.jp

[edit]

I have NO IDEA what the copyright tag for this image should be, it doesn't fall into any of the category i can see.

I own the document and i scanned it in, and its an original document from 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincspoacher (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Vanguard (1909)

[edit]

In the notes alluding to Commander R.F. Nicholls and the loss of HMS Vanguard, a couple of problems. My copy of Miller was printed in 2005, and so may be different to the original, but it gives the first printing as 2000, not 1999. With that in mind my edition (which apparently contains many corrections) has all the relevent information pertaining to the loss of Vanguard on P.50 and not P.51. Also there is NO mention whatsoever of the cause of the sinking of Vanguard, which makes the citation of the book for Note g. somewhat spurious. There is the statement on P.49 of my copy right before the reference to Vanguard, having just mentioned the loss of Natal, "before the war was over, unstable explosives had taken yet more lives", which is a fairly poor allusion to the loss of Vanguard.

At the very least there's the Report of the Court of Enquiry at GWPDA, or on the Scapa theme This Great Harbour by W.S. Hewison (also published by Birlinn) also refers to the sinking in a little more detail on pages 111-113 and reflects the findings of the Enquiry. --Harlsbottom (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My handwritten notes for Scapa give its publication date as 1999, taken from the British Library's copy, and probably (I don't recall) from inside the front cover. However, their own catalogue says 2000: so this probably should be changed. Referencing this sentence to Miller does indeed look problematic, and it looks like I have erred. The story is better-referenced in Naval Wrecks of Scapa Flow, though this too makes no direct mention of Nicholls. What do you suggest we change it to? Regards, — BillC talk 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I have no problem at all with Miller being referenced as to being on both Vanguard and Royal Oak - I haven't seen the connection made anywhere else to be honest. If Naval Wrecks discusses the actual loss of Vanguard then by all means use that, as it sounds, if not I can use Hewison.
By the by, if you think it's appropriate I can add to the outrage raised by the plan to salvage Royal Oak in 1957 - The Times reported rather extensively on the matter. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it - not that you need my or anyone else's permission, of course. (Snyder gives the year as 1958 in The Royal Oak Disaster, interestingly.) I have given a better reference for the Vanguard disaster, and put a {{cn}} next to the Nichols claim. I'd temporarily remove it but it's a bit of a nuisance with the {{ref_label}} template. — BillC talk 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the World War I Document Archive gives Midshipman R F Nichols as a survivor ("Not on Board") from Vanguard. Naval Wrecks of Scapa Flow says that the missing officers were on board Royal Oak for a concert. I'll keep looking and see if I can join them up a bit better. — BillC talk 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat infuriatingly a scouring of The Times' has left me none the wiser to Commander Nichols - it has raised another issue though. My Hewison "states" that, of the ship's complement;

  • 15 Officers were on Royal Oak for a concert.
  • 2 Midshipmen had been seconded to submarines.
  • 2 Sub-Lieutenants had been seconded to destroyers.
  • 49 Ratings on leave.
  • 22 "Ship's Company" returning from leave.

The Times of 14 July, 1917 states that 24 officers and 71 men (that tallies) were not on board and survived and we've 6 officers unaccounted for. So without any direct evidence we can't say Nichols was on Royal Oak at the time, which is a shame as it would be a nice connection. Hopefully you turn up something. Apologies for taking this a bit far - someone needs to update the Vanguard page!

As to permission, you've obviously been the driving force behind this page, and there are alas, some people out there who take Summarizing far too much. --Harlsbottom (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your views on Nichols; a case, I think, a case of me taking two and two and making five. I've dropped that part of the statement from the article. We appear to be on safe ground with 'away from the ship that night', which I have referenced to the GWPDA website. I missed the Jutland painting you'd added, by the way. Nice one. — BillC talk 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Sailors

[edit]

No mention in the article of the hundreds of boy sailors aged 14-17 who lost their lives. This was the greatest loss of young life at sea in any naval incident before or since, I gather from an article on the radio this morning marking the 70th anniversary. Also significant in that, following the incident, efforts were made to push a law through parliament that has subsequently prevented boys of this age from being placed on warships during wartime. I feel this information should be included in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.130.44 (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant article, (think I read it every year it's in 'on this day') and a credit to everyone working on it. If it helps there's some info on the subject above here and here, although not really any detail. I also noticed this little piece of info that is certainly interesting if anyone working on this thought it worthy of including. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I think the radio show alluded to is Radio 4's Today programme which can be listened to here (at 2hrs 43mins) - but only for the next week and if you're in the UK presumably. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ashes have been placed inside the wreck on at least two occasions (one of which was the sister of a crewman who died). I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with something. —BillC talk 09:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was some text on the Boy Sailors who died, but someone removed it on the grounds it was uncited. I am in the process of sourcing this properly (the sources tend to disagree amongst themselves as to the number of Boys who died), and will then add it back. (And thanks for the compliments on the article). —BillC talk 09:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, like I said it's a great article. The radio show covers the last section of those edits (about Churchill), but doesn't give any figures. I imagine the book they discuss while interviewing David Turner will be a good source when published. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turner's book (Last Dawn: The Royal Oak tragedy at Scapa Flow) was published some time ago, and I have a copy. —BillC talk 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, got the impression from the first BBC link above that it wasn't out yet. 'Fraid I don't have any other links or refs to offer you, but like I said the Today Programme can help out and should be ok as a source. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

[edit]

I've just noticed that a number of documents from The National Archives are referenced in the article, with "HMSO" given as the publisher. Since these documents were never published, and one has to visit The National Archives at Kew to consult them, this must surely fall into WP:OR? --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that they were not "published"? Being shown as HMSO suggests that they were published even if only in a limited edition. I have more faith in the accuracy of a report from a contemporary Admiralty Board of Enquiry than a book written for profit many years later. --jmb (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Oak flags

[edit]

I don't know if it is relevant but the White Ensign and Union flag flown by the Royal Oak at the surrender of the German fleet in WWI both hang in Strathlachlan Parish Church. More information on Canmore. --jmb (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

Why there are two different coordinates in the voice? Which is correct? Furthermore the DFT site reports the wreck "sleeps" 58.55.848N 02.59.001W. I thought this one was the best references to resolve the problem, but if I put on this coord wiki gives me an error (paragraph "Tomba di guerra")... Does anybody could help me? --Bonty (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are different because they have come from different sources. The differences between the values is quite small -- little larger than the length of a major warship. However, I will look into it and find the most reliable source I can for its location and use that throughout the article. The error were seeing when you tried to enter the DFT website location into {{coords}} is because you giving the arcseconds value as 84, which is >=60. (I see you've now fixed it.) —BillC talk 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyway, we (it. wiki) decide to add only the coord that appears in the DFT site. Bye --Bonty (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


List of casulaties only released after 40 years

[edit]

I don't see any reference for this statement. Are you sure it's true? In the book Portsmouth at War by Whitmarsh there is a contemporaneous photo (on page 27) of people examining the list of casualties outside the naval barracks. Llezsoeg (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Article Review?

[edit]

This article's been proposed as the Featured Article of the Day on the main page and it's not up to contemporary FA standards. There's barely any description of the ship to support the information in the infobox, the information on the interwar modernization(s) is sketchy, a few cites are missing, the bibliography needs to be overhauled for consistency and the sources need to be vetted. Not fond of the citation style, but I supposed I should respect the current format, although it seems awfully wordy with titles unnecessarily repeated. Anybody want to help to alleviate a formal FA Review?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll beef up the ship's description and provide cites for the infobox. Can you identify where you find the citations lacking elsewhere? —BillC talk 09:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The description's already been beefed up and is in the proper format. No cites for the infobox are needed as all that info is cited in the main body. I know where all the info is, I'm just not sure if I can find time to bring it up to standard in time for the anniversary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Royal Oak casualty figure

[edit]

This article gives 833 as the casualty figure and for many years this has been the widely accepted figure. Although his work has not been published yet, a local historian in Orkney has established to a reasonable level of certainty that the figure is 834. It seems that two names were omitted from, and one had been added in error to the original casualty list. Some recent publications and website entries have reflected this and the newly-erected memorial near the beach at Scapa Bay has the updated list and number. Just flagging this up. Will provide a more convincing and referenced case at some point, hopefully. Worth noting that the Royal Oak Survivor's Association and that here in Orkney the local branches of both the Royal British Legion and Royal Naval Association have accepted the new figure, but apart from the figure on the memorial it has not been widely publicised. Fine Hid (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting; are you able to provide any details now? —BillC talk 11:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on HMS Royal Oak (08). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative TFA

[edit]

If people are wondering what TFA Protector Bot is doing here, I have tentatively penciled this in as Today's Featured Article for the 17th. It needs some work before it can run, though, particularly to the WWI section. Parsecboy has offered to look at it in a few days, and all help will be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at November, I've already got enough Milhist and ship articles, so I'm going to push Royal Oak off till its next anniversary, which is January 15. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last survivor dies

[edit]

I understand that the last survivor Arthur Smith, who was a Boy 1st Class at the time, has died in the last few days. I am in search of an obituary to back this up but have been unable to find anything yet. I will add to the article when I do. —BillC talk 22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Royal Oak (08). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source problem

[edit]

A month ago, I posted at the OMT talk page here about a source problem I identified that had been inserted accidentally when the refs were converted back in 2014 - I fixed it, but it occurs to me that I probably ought to mention the problem here, as there may be more errors that crept into the article at the same time, and there are likely people watching this page that aren't watching the OMT one. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Sentence in Lead Sentence

[edit]

"The loss of the outdated ship—the first of five Royal Navy battleships and battlecruisers sunk in the Second World War—did little to affect the numerical superiority enjoyed by the British navy and its Allies, but it had a considerable effect on wartime morale."

(A) Was the ship wasn't significantly "outdated" in comparison to the average Royal Navy battleship. It was even more updated than its sisters with improvements to the armor not yet received by the sisters prior to the war. At the time the first of the KGV was still about a year from being commissioned, so for comparison you had the QE-Class and the Nelson-Class. Clearly the QEs were superior, but they were not newer. Three of the QEs were significantly rebuilt between wars, but less work was done to the Malaya and Barham. A good question might be: as the most updated of her class did the Royal Oak have some superior characteristics than the Malaya and Barham. Clearly speed was not enhanced.

(B) At the outbreak of WWII there were only 12 British Battleships available for service: 5 QEs, 5 Revenges, and 2 Nelsons, with the need for world wide coverage, losing 1 represented an 8% reduction in the force. As far as allies, in 1939 the French had 9 Dreadnought or better battleships, 7 of which were inferior to the Royal Oak in most ways and 2 of which were modern/faster, but carried inferior guns to the Royal Oak. This gives a 21 ship count, compared to the Axis Alliance of the Japanese (10), Italians (5), and Germans (2) = 17. Until December 1941 -- two plus years later, the US was not bound by any allegiance to Britain. However, the Japanese, Italians, and Germans were increasingly tied together by a series of pacts and treaties beginning in the mid-1930s. Going from 21 to 17 to 20 to 17 is a significant "affect the numerical superiority", especially with the questionable reliability of the French.

Can we micro-defend the sentence? Sure we can split hairs -- of course we can. But I think that having such a statement in the lead paragraph maybe considered irresponsible and not universally regarded as accurate. Unnecessarily controversial for an encyclopedia? Thank you! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd way to evaluate whether the ship was outdated or not; you might as well argue that the Swordfish wasn't outdated compared to other FFA aircraft of the time. In terms of the state of the art in 1939, the fast battleship had become the standard. And the fact remains that Royal Oak was more than 20 years old
Italy and Japan were not at war (with Britain) in 1939, so you're not considering 21 or 20 vs 17, you're considering 21 or 20 vs 2 (fairly weak battleships). And add to that the seven French battleships, and the equation becomes even more lopsided. The loss of one ship does not amount to a meaningful loss of numerical superiority in that context. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sentence important to the lead paragraph? While it may be a defensible POV in a debate, as an admin I suggest that you consider whether it is
(A) an important point, justifiable in the lead section
(B) whether this POV causes unnecessary controversy when we try to present a balanced and neutral encyclopedic content.
(C) Is there a better way to present this information, without minimizing the loss and disparaging the vessel?
I would say that if a Swordfish was superior to 50% of the planes available in the world at the time, these wouldn't have been outdated. A lot of this goes back to the British choice to produce an inferior product to follow the QE-Class. This is consistent with their strategic choice to produce the inferior KGV series for political and strategic reasons, the latter being more ships being preferable to better ships.
It seems that you are more interested in proving me wrong than to look objectively at the quality of the encyclopedia. Somewhat of a defensive stance rather than having an objective discussion about the merits of my concern. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your assertion is that the point is valid but doesn't belong in the lead, why did you simply delete in instead of moving it elsewhere? The goalposts seem to be moving; first the statement was "ludicrous[ly]" wrong, now it's POV and/or not important enough to be in the lead.
I don't know that the Revenges were superior to 50% of the world's existing battleships in 1939, and what British design choices in 1914 or 1935 has little to do with whether a 25-year old design was outdated or not (arguably, one could make the case that the distributed armor layout was outdated in 1914, let alone in 1939).
I find it curious that you are surprised that I, a person who disagrees with you, would seek to disprove your arguments. Why do you feel it necessary to comment on contributor, not on the content? Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum - do you have any sources that consider the Revenges to be first-rate battleships in 1939? If not, the point is moot. There are already two references in the article that describe the ship as obsolescent. You might consider this quote from another source: "...while the slower Royal Sovereign class vessels became increasingly obsolete, as newer, faster battleships entered service. The naval treaties of the inter-war years saw the scrapping of much of Britain's old dreadnought fleet, but the Royal Sovereign class survived, largely because despite their lack of speed they still carried 15in guns. While they would be modernized, they were still essentially battleships designed for an earlier age; consequently, by 1939, their value was limited, and they were relegated to secondary duties, where they were unlikely to encounter modern German, Italian or Japanese battleships on the high seas." Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made my points. I can't push rope uphill. As I said above, "Can we micro-defend the sentence? Sure we can split hairs -- of course we can." I'm not going to debate you further. Perhaps somebody else will see my point. Or maybe like you suggest move it out of the lead? I would support that compromise. Cheers!

And thanks for all you do for the pages -- I know you work hard. I remember your name fondly from when I was very active on WP years ago. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cite needed

[edit]

Can someone add a citation where its missing at the last sentence of the Special Operation P: the raid by U-47 section? Hog Farm Bacon 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blank page preview

[edit]

I noticed that the page preview for this article is blank (devoid of words and only display the ship picture). Could someone fix this problem? Thanks. Jauhsekali (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange bug. I'm thinking it's some sort of conflict with {{coordinates}}, but I've no idea how to fix that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jauhsekali: This bug is being tracked on Phabricator. It doesn't look like there's a timeline for fixing it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thank you. Also, I've seen some other pages has been affected by the bug as well. Jauhsekali (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a ‘rebreather diver’, please?

[edit]

Link? 61.68.84.23 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A diving rebreather reuses the diver's exhaled air by scrubbing the CO2 from it. It allows a diver to stay underwater for longer, but requires greater levels of skill and attention. I've placed a link in the article. —BillC talk 14:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an article on Rebreather diving - I wonder if that would be a better link? Up to you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Royal_Oak_(08)&oldid=1226717973"