Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of battleships of Japan

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Parsecboy (talk)

List of battleships of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another installment in the lists of warships, this one covers the battleships built by Japan. It caps the Japanese section of OMT, which is complete. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

The big giant has awakened here. ;)

  • Japan promulgated a ten-year naval build-up in early 1896 British build-up.
  • threatened Japan's interests in Korea Link Korea here and unlink the second one.
  • fleet of eight modern battleships, 20,000 long tons (20,321 t) Link long tons.
  • The launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 by the Royal Navy raised the stakes Link Royal Navy.
  • "was spending in 1921 32 per cent of her entire national revenue" By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats". Also British per cent.
  • Fuji hosted the American ambassador to Japan and some senior Who was the ambassador?
  • Link Russo–Japanese War in the lead.
  • First World War v. World War I.
  • Link Yellow Sea.
  • Link knots in every template in every section.
    • It's not a sortable table so the first link suffices
  • Link long tons in every template in every section.
    • As above
  • Unlink tonnes in every template in every section. Because of common term.
  • World War I/First World War/WWI (I don't care which name) is overlinked.
  • the Russian battleship Poltava (Russian: Полтава) Unlink the Russian language here. Because of common term.
  • Japan declared war on Imperial Germany Maybe link Imperial Germany here?
  • in 1907 that killed 34 men and wounded 8 others Maybe use eight instead of 8?
  • they both participated in Japan's intervention in Siberia in 1918 Link Japan's intervention in Siberia here.
  • Aki was launched on 15 November 1906 Remove 1906 here.
  • No Kanji and Rōmaji in the Satsuma class?
  • The Fusō-class battleships (扶桑型戦艦 Fusō-gata senkan) Maybe add a semicolon between the Kanji and Rōmaji? Same in the Ise, Nagato, Tosa and Yamato-classes.
    • They're templated.
  • Also Japan used metric units at that time.
  • Ref 65 "pp. 84-85, 90." --> pp. 84–85, 90.
  • Citation 65 and 66 are the same.
    • Sharp eyes!
  • Ref 147 "p. 70–71, 356." --> pp. 70–71, 356.
  • In the template of the Kii-class "29.75 knots (55.10 km/h; 34.24 mph" there is an unnecessary nought in the km/h.
  • In the template of the Fuji-class "18.25 knots (34 km/h; 21 mph)" unlink km/h and mph.

I think that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Sturm the list looks good in my view. I just found a little issue in the 39th citation which state "p. 125-26." I guess it should be "pp. 125–126". Also, the 92nd citation has double p even it is only one page. That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Colorized_Shikishima_Shooting.jpg: as per the tag, what is the publication date of this image? Same with File:Japanese_battleship_Fuji.jpg, File:Colorize_Mikasa.jpg, File:Yamato_%26_Musashi.jpg
    • File:Japanese_battleship_Fuji.jpg is probably a commercial photo or postcard, based on the lettering.
    • I realize that this is a problem with the template, but the statement therein that "It is also in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in Japan expired by 1970 and was not restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act." seems to override any need for the PD-1996|Japan tag when there's no known US publication prior to 1970. Earlier versions of this tag lacked the whole section about publication date and I'm not sure why it was added as nothing changed in Japanese copyright law. At any rate I'm going to simplify both our lives and tag most of these with the alien property custodian tag as I believe they were official photos of one sort or another and thus out of US copyright entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Асахи.jpg: is the 2005 source the first known publication? Same with File:Tango1908-1909.jpg, File:Hizen-battleship-1.jpg, File:Iwami_large.jpg, File:Katori_large.jpg, File:Kawachi_1913.jpg, File:Fuso_Trial_Heading_Left.jpg, File:Nagato1924.jpg
    • As above--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For both this and the above, I'm not convinced that all of these would necessarily have been administered by the alien property custodian - most of them are author unknown, and as per WP:NUSC there were limitations in the Japanese context. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since all photos used herein were taken prior to 1947, what possible problem could there be with the Japanese copyrights since all photos taken before that date are explicitly stated as out of copyright as of 1970? The only issue, as far as I can tell, is the status of US copyright. And, to the best of my knowledge, none of these were published in the US prior to 1996. So why are you dubious that these weren't official photographs subject to the alien property custodian?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • (a) I'm not disputing they are out of copyright in Japan. (b) Whether they were published in the US prior to 1996 has nothing to do with whether they were official photographs; however (c) if they were not subject to the alien property custodian and were first published in 2005, they are likely to still be in copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, we're agreed on their Japanese copyright status; some of what you said earlier gave me the impression that there might be a problem there. As for determining if they were official photographs or not, how do we do that without photographer or publication info (if they were published at all)? Given that these are not obviously taken by amateurs and the IJN's cult of secrecy after WWI precluded professional ship photographers from getting access with which to take their photos, I think that that we can reasonably assert that they're official photos that were dispersed after the war into museum collections. This would leave the earlier photos which could have been taken by anybody, including the IJN, and professional photographers who we know published some as postcards and may or may not have published them in other formats like photo album pages or simple prints. These are generally pretty-high quality photos, so I'm inclined to rule out amateurs with a Kodak Brownie or similar camera which leaves amateurs with pro-grade equipment and skills and actual professionals who need to keep food on the table by publishing them. So I think we can reasonably assume that these were published in one form or another shortly after they were taken, which means that they'd fall under the normal PD-1923 rules. I know this is a lot of assumptions, etc., but I think that we're reduced to the most probable situation when evaluating their copyright status, barring better information, which probably isn't easily available. What are your thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we've discussed this before, but does that 2005 book provide any further information on provenance that might be useful in sorting this out? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not that I can tell since I don't read Japanese. It just says "selected photos from the Archives of the Kure Maritime Museum" and "The best from the collection of Shizuo Fukui's photos of Japanese warships". Fukui was, according to his obit, was a IJN naval architect who was director of naval construction of Maizuru Naval Shipyard at the end of the war. After the war he worked for the 2nd Bureau of Discharged Officials and started "his historical research and his lifelong contributions to the preservation of the records of the ships of the IJN". He joined the Maritime Safety Agency in 1948 and resigned in 1952. He collected 20,000 photos before he died in '93 and donated them to museums upon his death. Annoyingly, that's not clear about when he started collecting photos, though I'd bet it was post-war. Many of the IJN's records didn't survive the war or were dispersed, so he may have started to assemble those that he could find then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, so here's what I'd suggest. Given that pre-war photography was more open, I don't think we can assume those automatically fall under the alien custody rules; those that were likely postcard or album publications can get a pre-1924 tag instead. Images taken after WWI but before 1946 can keep the alien custody tag, but suggest adding some justification to each of these explaining why they are likely official photos. Confusingly, the Commons page on Japanese copyright suggests an 11-year extension for wartime copyright? I can't figure out what they've based that on though, any ideas? In any event, in all cases suggest adding as much information as to provenance as can be found, and also where assumptions have been made the basis for those assumptions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good compromise. I have no idea of what they're talking about with the extension of copyright during wartime, although it perhaps pertains more to written and artistic items already under copyright when the war began? Looking over the page, I noticed {{PD-anon-1923}} which might be better for all the older photos. What do you think? Here's a draft of the language that I plan to use for the older ones: "Photographer is assumed to be either a professional or an official photographer as it is a high-quality image unlikely to have been taken by an amateur. If taken by a professional photographer, it is assumed to have been published in one form or another shortly after being taken." What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you could use that template, and that language, but suggest in both cases mentioning in the image description what work was done to attempt to identify the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howzabout something like: "The identity of the photographer has not been found in any media through its most recent publication c. 2005."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the images from that book, that's the earliest confirmed publication, not the most recent - you could say no author was attributed in that book nor in any other source found. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is better phrasing. All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in very good shape, but I think would benefit from changes to its first section:

  • The first para still isn't in line with MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH - it should summarise the whole article, and not immediately go into a narrative. I'm not a fan of having such a long lead, as it's rather daunting to readers. I'd reiterate my comment below. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to do about this - the entire lead summarizes the list - there isn't much that can be cut at this point, and there's certainly no way to condense 50+ years of battleship programs into a single paragraph. The only thing I think that could be added to further define the scope of the article would be a line that gives a breakdown of how many pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, and fast battleships were built over the course of the time period (plus cancelled ships), as I did at List of battleships of France. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, I'm still not supporting this nomination per the above (which I think is easy to fix) but I also have no opposition whatsoever to the article being promoted to A-class. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest turning the very long lead into a titled section ("Historical context" or similar perhaps?), with sub-sections - it's hard to navigate the current large quantity of text
  • This material should, at least briefly, put the start of the IJN battleship force into the context of the extraordinary transition Japan made in the late 19th century as it rapidly industrialised and established a strong central government with modern military forces, and then aggressively expanded overseas.
  • "Japan "was spending in 1921 32 per cent of her entire national revenue" - what's meant by "national revenue" here? Government tax receipts? It seems a hard-to-credit figure if it's a proportion of GDP.
  • I'd suggest noting the modernisation of the battleship force prior to 1941
  • Given that the Kongō-class battlecruisers were reclassified as fast battleships after being rebuilt, I'd suggest including them in this article
    • Sturm added a section on them (though I don't know if he's done with it)
      • Done.
  • As the introduction notes the performance of Japan's battleships in the Russo-Japanese War, I'd suggest adding a similar para on their performance during World War II
  • "She was badly neglected during the post-World War II Occupation of Japan " - she was actually partially dismantled under the terms of the Japanese surrender agreements (for instance, to remove her guns), and then neglected
  • I think there's too much detail on the post-Japanese history of Tango
  • "Due to the threat of American submarines and aircraft carriers" - weren't fuel shortages also part of the reason? Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy:, Nick's comments have been here for a month, maybe you've missed them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm and I had talked some time ago - I thought he was working on a new intro and figured I wouldn't mess around with it in the mean time. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been distracted by volunteering for a music festival, which, not entirely incidentally lacks an article. Been reading up on notability criteria for music-related topics and trying to familiarize myself with good practices there. Nate, if you want to address all of Nick's comments that don't relate to the intro that would be fine, and I'll try and finish rewriting the intro today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those watching, we have a new intro put together. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Placeholder for now, will wait until the above are addressed before doing my review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll crack on, as I think Nick-D is just about done. I have a few comments, but I think it will take a while to get through them all due to the length of the list:

  • In the lead, "But tTo counter"
  • "convinced the IJN that its existing policynaval doctrine was untenable" if that is what is meant?
  • "adopted the doctrineapproach"
  • "The Imperial Japanese Army captured the portPort Arthur, along with the surviving..."
  • link pre-dreadnought battleship and introduce it in full
  • The propect
  • "to agree to the Washington Naval Treaty, which limited Japan"
  • perhaps explicitly state that the 3:5:5 ration was battleships, if that is correct
  • suggest it would be clearer if it was "and dominance of the government by the military,"
  • "and other ships had higher prioritiesy"
  • not related to here, but the infobox displacement on the Fuji article doesn't match the body and this list, and on the Yashima article neither the body or infobox displacement matches what is on this list
    • Fixed
  • the speed in the Fuji article infobox and the class one don't match the speed used here, and are you using "as designed" or sea trials maximum? Maybe clarify that in the Key?
  • Fixed
  • "and together with the battleship Mikasa sank the Russian battleship Oslyabya"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and was not damaged by Russian fire"
  • "sunk by the submarine USS Salmon"
  • "Ooccupation of Japan"
  • why the range for Tango's belt, given the others are just maximums?
  • "Sagami and Suwo were originally the"
  • not for this list, but the Retvizan one has mismatching displacements between the infobox and body
    • Fixed; where were you when the article was going through FAC?
  • not for this list, but the upper displacement range on the Katori class article doesn't match the Kashima article
    • Fixed
  • according to the class article, Satsuma's designed speed was 18.25 kn
    • Fixed
  • not for this list, but the infobox displacement in the Fusō-class battleship article doesn't match the body
    • Fixed
  • "in the early years of the war"→" in its early years" just to avoid repeating war
  • the Ise-class battleship article says the belt was 11.8 in
  • the Ise-class battleship article doesn't actually give the normal displacement in the body (it is in the infobox)?
    • 'Cause I haven't updated it in preparation for an ACR yet.
  • the Nagato class displacements are round the wrong way, and the speed was 26.5 kn
  • the Kongo speed as a fast battleship appears to have been 30.5 kn?
  • minor quibble, but the Design A-150 battleship article says 46 cm armor and this list says 457 mm
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC for Seagrave?
  • the sources all appear reliable and of high quality. I understand that combinedfleet.com has previously been ruled to be reliable.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly thorough review, many thanks for picking up on some many inconsistencies. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, looks pretty good to me. Just a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • seems inconsistent: "the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" in the same paragraph
  • "armoured" but also "armor"
  • "File:Асахи.jpg": suggest cropping and adding an English description to the Commons description page
  • "File:Hizen-battleship-1.jpg": suggest cropping
  • are there page numbers for Lengerer's 1982 chapter in Roberts?
  • same as above for Lengerer's 2012 chapter in Jordan?
  • same as above for Itani's 1992 chapter in Gardiner
  • in the References section, it probably makes sense to add a subheading called Books for consistency
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_battleships_of_Japan&oldid=911660740"