Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

HMS Neptune

HMS Neptune is a single ship class. We should combine the class and individual ship articles, n'est-ce pas?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If the WP articles are right and the Colossus class is normally separated from Neptune, then yep. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say delete the class page, it's mostly unreferenced dross anyway (or easily refuted dross). --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's where I was leaning, but both Conway's and Burt list Colossus as a separate class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was referring to the Neptune class page. Colossus class is definitely a separate ship class. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Merged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Early Austro-Hungarian ships

I just got a batch of Warship Internationals and one of them has an article on the A-H Monarch class ships. They're pretty consistently called coast defense ships there as well as by Conway's. And at 5600 tons it's hard to argue with them. The Kronzprinz class ships are called barbette ships by Conway's and have tonnages ranging between 5075 and 6830. I think that all of these really aren't pre-dreadnoughts and should be dropped from the project, which would leave the Habsburg class as the first A-H ships that we cover. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything I've come across refers to the Monarchs as coast defense ships. And as for the two Kronprinzs, those are definitely not within our scope. As an aside, they're not even in the same class; Erzherzog Rudolf was significantly larger than Erzherzogin Stefani. I'd agree with the removal of everything older than the Habsburgs. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Invincible class battlecruisers for GT

Prompted by MBK004, I've nominated the Invincible class battlecruisers for GT. Please feel free to comment on the nom at WP:GTC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Battleship cleanup via Ships project

I'm dropping this note and then running. 12 articles under this project scope rated GA or higher have multiple issues. See list here. --Brad (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

French BC designs

Hi everybody. I was looking through the French section of Conway's this morning (I'm thinking about working on Bretagne-class battleship), and I noticed there's three BC proposals on page 200. It doesn't look like there's enough info to warrant three separate articles, but we could probably combine it into a 1913 French battlecruiser proprosals like the Dutch example. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Combining them is the best bet, though I'd much prefer it if they'd been closer to choosing a single design. I'm not aware of any articles or books discussing these proposals so it's going to be very hard to get even a consolidated article past GA for lack of background information. Frankly I'm not in favor of these sorts of articles unless they were far more advanced in terms of designs, bids, etc. than is the case here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Conway's has entries on them, so should Wikipedia. I agree that a single entry would be best. I imagine that books and journal articles on French naval construction in the pre-World War I period will provide further information. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ship discovery and reliable sourcing

The discovery of Japanese battleship Yamato was recently added to the article, which is an A-Class article. I have some pause about the reliability of the sources that were used for this. See the edit: [1]. Also, this new section as well as the text added to the lead could use some heavy-duty copyediting. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the least the added information and sources appear to be accurate, if not relible. No harm in leaving it in until Cam and/or I can source it all and add more. I may be able to rework it tonight, depending on how fast I can get some Minas Geraes and North Carolina stuff done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We could develop some standard guidelines for what to do about this though so that if other discoveries are made you can have a plan of action in place. That said, as Cam was the one who did most of the work I think it best to leave the new info in his hands. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO that would just add instruction creep... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the standard approach to this kind of edit is to replace unreliable sources with reliable ones where possible or remove the material outright if it can't be sourced. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with this when I get back on the 4th. Cam ^(Chat) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoax classes

I don't believe we ever made a decision about whether we were going to include planned classes which were hoaxes as part of the Cold War, the Soviets duped the western world with their K-1000 battleship. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really inclined to get into them, unless we can find a source that discusses the hoax and its impact on their opponents in detail. Simply trawling through Jane's and correlating entries by year doesn't seem to be a profitable use of our time, especially since it didn't seem to have much of an impact on ship and weapon programs, barring the fear-mongering used to justify them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they ought to be included, but as the class was a hoax, I'd put these ships under phase 4 of the operation. They were never really going to be built, but as demonstrated with the Montana class you can produce an FA out of an incompleted battleship class, and that is more or less what we have here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Letters to those whom it may concern

I have been entertaining the idea of writing to the eight U.S. battleship museums to see if they can help us push some of these articles to FA status, and I have also thought about writing a letter to the U.S. Navy to see if we can get some assistance from them on matters like engine plants and armor specs. I wanted to bounce the idea off the rest of the members and see what everyone thought before going ahead with this though, while I think it could be a worthwhile endeavor and could help lay the ground work for museum displays like what the anthropology project has done it could also backfire on us if we are not careful. What do the rest of you think? Should we do this? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems worthwhile, though you'd need to be careful about OR issues, of course. It's best to write to institutions on specific matters rather than asking for general assistance. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as general thoughts: for obvious reasons, these are all extremely busy people. I was in contact with one of the archivists there about a week ago trying to find a drawing of the North Carolina-class battleship's proposed "XVI-C" design and he remarked upon the time and money it took to digitize millions of records. I tried to get into contact with the SS United States Conservancy people about two weeks ago, but I never received a reply. It's obviously worth a shot, but it may be a mistake to hope for too much...

As for OR, I don't know if it would be too much of a problem. They could cite the original government documents that I am sure they hold in their possession much like IronShip (talk · contribs) and USS Texas (BB-35), which although they are primary sources, could be of immense benefit for specific infobox statistics, modernization modifications, battle damage and quoteboxes. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There will be other considerations as well; for one, although present for the time the ships were in commission, the vets will unable to simply add there stories to the article unless they can produce paper work to that effect. Another point is that in the spirit of WP:SIZE we will have to decide how much of the material we get (if we get any) goes up and what gets filed away. All in all though ed, I think you hit the point right on: ask about specifics, hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Conway's Battleships: The Definitive Visual Reference to the World's All-Big-Gun Ships

How useful is this if I've the three relevant volumes of Conway's?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sovietsky Soyuz class

I've started work on this article and see no real justification for article on each of the unfinished ships when I can handle them with a single paragraph each. Unless some one thinks otherwise, I'll merge the Soviet battleship Sovietskaya Ukraina article into the class article in the next day or so. I'd appreciate it if someone with admin rights would go ahead and delete the Template:Sovietsky Soyuz class battleship as it won't be needed any further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right, there isn't a need for individual articles. I don't think that the template should be deleted though. The names were selected, so IMO the template should be okay as long as the links to the ships are removed. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see a purpose for a navbox that doesn't lead anywhere, so I'll probably rename it and use it for some other class at some point.

Friedman's US CV design history

This isn't quite the proper forum, but we probably have access to the best naval libraries available to Wikipedians and I'm hoping that somebody has, or has access to, Friedman's book on US carriers, or at least a Jane's Fighting Ships. I'm doing the GAR for the Nimitz class CVs and I'm perturbed that the editor's tried to write it without even looking at Friedman's book. From what I remember it wasn't particularly good on the Nimitz's, doubtless because of security restrictions, but the editor hasn't used any other print sources either. He's done a very creditable job using the net, but the design and development is pretty skimpy and, I feel, likely to cause me to fail the article for completeness. OTOH, if there's really nothing published with the amount of detail that I'm used to for ships without top secret notices plastered all over them then I can pass it in good conscience. He's mentioned that his local library (in the UK) is pretty poor, which explains the lack of print references, but is there a UK equivalent to Interlibrary Loan that he can use to try and get access to some of these books? Or can someone who has access help him out?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Books has limited preview on it here. At least he'll be able to see some of it. Not sure on UK inter-library loan. I'll poke a couple Brits on IRC quick and see what they say. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Auto-Archiving?

With Wernerbot offline at the moment I am interested in knowing whether anyone would object to having Mizabot pickup the slack. The bot already archives the main milhist talk page and the talk page for USS Constitution, so it shouldn't be too hard to configure this page for archiving as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.[2] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take that as a "no objections" position :) Thanks, ed. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

This question applies mainly to the American battleships, I was wondering if we could clarify where redirects like BB-1, BB-2, BB-3, etc. should redirect to. While this isn't much of an issue with a ship like the USS New York (BB-34), I know I recently redirected BB-1 and BB-2 to BB1 and BB2 respectively, but now I'm not so certain. The main trouble come from the show Big Brother which is apparently abbreviated BB#. I guess the question comes down to whether those early battleships should be placed on the unhyphenated disambiguation page with the hyphenated hull redirecting there, or should the hyphenated page go directly to the battleship. I'm of the opinion all pages (battleships and Big Brothers) should be disambiged on the same page, but I wanted to get some other input as well. AP1787 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

US Navy designations always use the hyphen so I'd be just as happy for the hyphenated page to link directly to the ship articles. The BB# can go to a disambig page where people can find out if they're referring to Big Brother or a battleship. There's a peculiar bias against hyphens in Wiki which can cause some problems with article names for US weapons and I'm tired to having to cater to it, so let's save the hyphens!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BB-1 ought to redirect to BB1 due to Budd BB-1 Pioneer. Can't see any substantive case for BB-2 redirecting to BB2 though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Tosa

Does anyone have information on what happened between the June 1924 tests on Tosa (documented here in my sandbox) and when she was sunk on 9 February 1925 in the Bungo Strait? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I can check. Cam ^(Chat) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll check Kaigun. I keep forgetting to check Skulski for the Yamato article also, so I'll try to knock out both tonight. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaigun (Peattie) and Imperial Japanese Navy (Watts and Gordon) imply, without providing detail, that Tosa's hull was under constant use as a test target until it sank in February '25. That's probably as much information as can be found in English sources. The contributors at CombinedFleet's discussion forum who can read Japanese may have access to additional information. Cla68 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a thread here. Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR

I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Article request

Would it be possible for someone with access to JSTOR or some such to send me a copy of the article by Nicholas A. Lambert. "Our Bloody Ships or Our Bloody System", Journal of Military History 62:1 (Jan 1998) pp. 29-56? I'd like to get this before I try and kick my British BC articles to ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh fine, I won't even get a chance to help. You responded in nine minutes? Not fair. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was working on my undergrad research thesis, and the document in question is something I've been using! And I haven't actually sent it yet, the Wikipedia user email function annoyingly won't allow you to upload documents... Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's awesome. I'm hoping to write an upcoming research thesis on Goeben and her adventures with the Turkish navy during the First World War and after. Not sure if it'll happen (it's a group project, so we all have to agree), but if I do... well, you know who I'll be hitting up for potential sources. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've got a fair amount collected on the Battle of Imbros and some of Goeben's other activities from Warship International if you need it, Ed. But you should get the second edition of Buxton's Big Gun Monitor for an excellent account of the Battle if everything works out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm, I might take you up on that. If I need to create an in-depth account of the battle, I'll be sure to hunt down a copy of that book too :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

reviews needed

I'd like to ask that if any of y'all have a little bit of spare time that there are a number of OMT-related articles currently awaiting assessments and GARs. Help me turn our front page a little bit greener and replace those ugly reds and oranges!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone can think of a good DYK for Russian battleship Poltava (1911) I'd be grateful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to get to at least a couple of them tomorrow morning. As for Poltava, that's going to be tough. It looks like she had a pretty boring career. Maybe something along the lines of "...that Poltava only saw active service with the Russian Navy for five years before a fire gutted the ship, which eventually led to the ship being discarded?"

That's about what I came up with, which is pretty lame, IMO, so I'm not sure that I'll bother. It's not like I'll actually need the points for the WWI contest or WikiCup since I only have to make it into the next round. Oh, and thanks for knocking Chesma off already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be fine to just let it go. Looks like I got distracted this morning with Goeben (though it's not finished yet), and now I have to run off to class. I'll try to get to doing some reviews later today or over the weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever anybody can get to them is fine, I was just getting a little irritated as the normal cadre of reviewers seemed to be avoiding them like the plague. I can expand the Battle of Imbros section quite a bit whenever you're ready for somebody else to poke around in the Goeben article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

References needed?

Are there any references we need that no one has? I'll be happy to buy one and fill in some details. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think anything we need, and everyone else apparently can't think of anything, as they haven't replied. ;) Thanks a lot for the offer, and we'll be sure to hit you up as soon as we think of one we all need. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've got Friedman coming. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

South Carolina class battleships

Reference for these ships by Norman Friedman can be found here: http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/story.asp?STORY_ID=2147 . Nor sure how long it'll stay up... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting evolution. I'm also struck by his comments that the USN didn't believe that superfiring turrets could fire over lower turrets with sighting hoods in the turret roof tops. Burt, Roberts, and McLaughlin also comment on this. Simon presented evidence that the effect of the muzzle blast wasn't as bad as people feared, but the idea certainly influenced Russian designs, note the four non-superfiring turrets of the Ganguts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a little about that in a Scientific American article on Minas Geraes. Apparently representatives from a few nations observed Minas Geraes' firing trials just for a last confirmation that superfiring turrets did not harm sailors in the lower turret. With hindsight it seems like an easy decision (to go with superfiring), but think of the poor designers then—it would have been a huge risk. What would have happened if the superfiring experiment had failed? Russia would have had the four most powerful battleships in the world for a time. Now there could be an interesting counterfactual scenario. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But it seems very odd why naval architects simply didn't move the sight openings from the roof to the sides like the US did. Seems simple enough... I can maybe understand why the Brits were slow to adopt side-mounted sights since the turrets were designed by the DNO who didn't have much to do with the DNC, although neither one set ship characteristics, but still... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

German BC FT

Now that I've finally knocked out SMS Goeben, I whipped up List of battlecruisers of Germany. I've never written a list article, and am not really familiar with how to write one that would meet the featured list standards. Can anyone take a look at it and help me out a bit? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if using the word "same" would be allowed so you don't repeat statistics multiple times? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that when I was writing it. I wonder what the standard is... Parsecboy (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have two FLs to my credit, but they were lists of astronauts, so I'm not sure how much help I could be, especially since they date from about a year ago. While the single image is technically enough to satisfy the criteria for images, the list seems way to bare to me and could use the addition of at least one to two more images. Perhaps an image gallery at the bottom like in this FL: List_of_ISS_spacewalks#2010? If you have questions you could always ask the people at WT:FLC I guess as well, short of a peer review/ACR (which I think would be good as well). -MBK₀₀₄ 05:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have gone back through this list and after reviewing the criteria have a few suggestions. The criteria does mention the use of sortable tables and color in the tables, but I'm not sure if those two things could realistically be employed with this list (there are lists that do not). After reading the visual media criterion, my earlier suggestion about an image gallery is seconded. It looks ready to take to either ACR and or FLC. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I added a gallery and have nominated it for A-class. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the encompassing featured topic which you have tentatively laid-out at User:Parsecboy/ISG, I have invited Rst20xx (talk · contribs) to make suggestions here on any issues with the topic and the possibility of utilizing sub-topics as well or not. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You could lay this out as a topic and two subtopics, like this:

Battlecruisers of Germany

8 articles

SMS Von der Tann

Moltke class battlecruisers ^(subtopic)

SMS Seydlitz

Derfflinger class battlecruisers ^(subtopic)

Mackensen class battlecruisers

Ersatz Yorck class battlecruisers

"O" class battlecruisers

Moltke class battlecruisers

3 articles

SMS Moltke (1910)

SMS Goeben

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

4 articles

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

Or you could lay it out as one big topic, like this:

Battlecruisers of Germany

13 articles

SMS Von der Tann

Moltke class battlecruisers

SMS Moltke (1910)

SMS Goeben

SMS Seydlitz

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

Mackensen class battlecruisers

Ersatz Yorck class battlecruisers

"O" class battlecruisers

Given that there are 13 articles involved, which is a perfectly reasonable number for a topic, I would favour one big topic. But as far as I can see, these are the two options that are possible - rst20xx (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I say go with the big one as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My thought is to go with the subtopic one, if only so we have a common format if the next OMT FT has more than 13 articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Ed and for the subtopic as well. We want consistency and think of when the British battleships are finished. While the big topic may be feasible for the German battlecruisers, it will not be for all and that should be the main factor because of the eventual goal of this whole project. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it'll be better to split it up into sub-topics, for the reasons outlined above. Parsecboy (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... hold the phone. What if we deliniated it into big topics, then take the U.S. BB's and divide them into pre-dreadnoughts (BB-1 through BB-25), BB-26 through the first South Dakota class, and then the 1930s battleships (ie pre- and post- Washington Naval Treaty)? Would those be small enough, given that the recent cricket FT was ~40 articles? The only problem beyond the US would be the British pre-dreadnoughts, I think (the UK dreadnoughts can be divided like the US ones).

I say this because larger topics would be much easier to manage than 54096537 topics + subtopics. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That cricket FT was contentious on the issue of subtopics, and why it lasted for so long. The reason it wasn't split was because the majority of the support was registered before the split was suggested, not to mention the new arrangement of the articles in the topic box now (which I don't think does as much for our purposes of presentation). We have already established a precedent with the class topics, so those will be expected from now on regardless (either we nominate them when they are ready or someone else will). It is more logical to present a topic of the classes capped by a list with the subtopics covering each class. There could also be larger topics on the design strategies, for instance for the US there could be a topic with Standard type battleship as its capstone. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the big topic looks better, for an outside opinion, even though it means my Moltke image won't be used. I came upon this via that image, BTW, I'm giving it another shot at FPC. Would appreciate your opinions, it had only supports last time but was closed due to lack of reviewers! Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The precedent doesn't have to be changed. Classes can still be nominated, but this way we can combine some of the topics so we don't have 100 subtopics—everything would be in one place, making it easier for readers to move between everything. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the big topic looks better, and provided that we break it up much like Ed was talking about, will not be too big to be manageable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; we'd have to split List of battleships of the Royal Navy to List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy and List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy, which seems a little odd to me. On the other hand, there are so many ships in both categories that the resulting list would be monstrous, if expanded like the German BC one. Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... one massive topic > thirty tiny ones, IMHO. Perhaps we should cross the UK pre-dreadnought bridge whenever we actually get to it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Captured Russian BB article names

Currently most, if not all, of the Russian ships captured at Tsushima or Port Arthur are listed under their Japanese names. I'm of a mind to change these back to their Russian names as the Japanese did not use them very long or as first line ships so that I feel that the Russian names are more significant. I know that with the redirects it really doesn't matter so much, but it still bugs me. What do y'all think? I suspect that a simple move to their Russian name would be problematic because of the original redirects. Do I need to merge them or what? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. Most of the ships took part in either Tsushima or Yellow Sea; that's far more notable than having been artillery training ships or guardships or whatever else the Japanese used them for. The only way page histories will matter is if any of the articles used to be at the Russian name and were either copy-pasted to or merged into the Japanese name. If you need help deleting the redirects to make way for the articles, just let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no significant history for my current project, Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I, other than assessments, but I'll try a merge anyways and see how it goes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Conversion templates and units used

I'm interested in knowing what kind of range we should adopt for conversion templates being used for our article's scopes. Apparently I have all kinds of ranges in the Iowa class article (now largely removed), but I would like to see those ranges readded and would appreciate some input on how to make that happen in manner that produces correct ranges and uses units everyone agrees on. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the proper range templates back into main gun section, but that's a yards/meters conversion with a special addition of yards/miles one for all the non-naval people who are likely to look at this article. Otherwise it's really a question of what the original source used. Displacement should be LT/MT or vice versa, length/thickness should be inches/feet to metric units. Nautical miles and knots should be converted to both regular miles and km. And boiler pressure should use this, possibly with the units swapped around: {{convert|100|kg/cm2|kPa psi|0|abbr=on|lk=on}}. Power should use shp/kW. What Gene was mainly bitching about, I think, was that a lot of the sources themselves don't specify the exact kind of units they're using; it's just something to be careful about. Conway's is particularly bad about distinguishing between long and metric tons. And, IMO, conversions should be done to the nearest whole digit, for large numbers, and to the 1st decimal point for small ones. So 3 inches is 76.2 mm. Just watch out for the adjectival forms and for US spelling; they're both laid out in the first section of the template doc page, but are easy to over look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New working group we can coordinate with

I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Battle of Jutland has been created, as some of their scope will inevitably include some of our pages I thought I would make everyone aware of this. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:BB61 USS Iowa BB61 broadside USN.jpg

might be good for wp:FPC. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Its been at FAC before and failed, but we can ask an FAC expert for suggestions to improve the article if you want to try again. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you mean FPC. :P Nergaal, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

another article request

Does anybody have got access to this article? Postscript on the Szent Istvan by Graham Norton; History Today, Vol. 48, June 1998 I need it to round out my article on Szent Istvan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The first page is available here, but you have to get a subscription to see the rest... Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you can do a free one-day trial; maybe you could do that, save the text to your computer, and then work from there. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but even Questia only has the first page. I was hoping it was on JSTOR or something. But thanks for the pointer anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's on ProQuest - ping me an email if you don't have access. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal?

Just to test the water here, would there be any interest in creating a portal for the project? All things considered, we have enough articles to justify a task force practically, it would not be too much of a stretch to image that we could gather enough notable material to create a portal for the project. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually about to suggest that you use a category and/or template on the article talk pages: The former would aid in measuring progress and allow non-project members to identify any articles you may have missed, while the latter could generate some more notice and interest in the project overall. You could also try a Wikipedia ad as well. However, I think a battleship portal would be a grand idea, as would a battleship task force (which would take care of both the category and template idea). While I'm not really much of an asset for getting an article past B-class, I would delight in contributing by maintaining a portal and other "public relations" affairs like this. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories would be a good idea, though I like the table format here and think we should maintain the two in tandem. A portal would also be a good idea, especially with the offer above from bahamut to maintain it. I'll poke Juliancolton (talk · contribs), who has experience in making portals. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine idea, and I'd be happy to help. Would it just be Portal:Battleships? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I'm thinking, naturally, Battleship grey should feature, probably with a blue to offset. The best thing about a portal with this project is that we can constantly add new features. To start, we have 29 FAs and 16 A-classes, so I don't think do much better than a selected article and selected image, though in the future we could expand past that into nationailities perhaps. We might be able to sprinkle in some biographies and significant battles as well, but I'm ignorant as to the quantity and quality of those related to battleships. We could also do some historic dates based on the month, like Portal:United States Marine Corps's "This Month in History", and perhaps some "Did you know?"s as well to round it out. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get started. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of, who wants to get battleship grey to FA? bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One question. Since Wikinews doesn't have much content on Battleships, the dynamic list of news articles would have to be from n:Category:Military (or I guess n:Category:Transportation). Would that be acceptable? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with using Wikinews in a portal. Can you show me one that does this? bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Rhode Island/News –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of categories and talk page tagging, that is on Kirill's to-do list with {{WPMILHIST}}, see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:MHCOORD#WP:MILHIST_template_and_Special_Projects -MBK₀₀₄ 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a task at Portal_talk:Battleships#Todo. I might be adding stuff periodically, depending on my laziness. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the automatic news: I don't really forsee Wikinews writing about our scope very often, if at all. I think we can drop that section entirely.

On another note, I created {{BB portal}} to link to the portal on articles once we get it up and running. I tried to add a parameter to change the icon, but couldn't get it to work right. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks good bahamut. JC, two thoughts: there will be virtually no new news about battleships and I highly doubt there are any panoramas. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruisers?

I've just realized that we have left these vessels out of the new portal. Is the plan to create Portal:Battlecruisers as well for those articles? There is probably sufficient FA/A/GAs and a couple FPs available for that one. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We could rename the portal to OMT or gunships or something of that nature, this should bypass that issue altogether. Otherwise, I would be open to the idea of creating a battlecruiser portal, although it should be noted that if we get too technical here we'll subdivide ourselves to the point where we can not maintain a portal for either of the two :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can just add the battlecruisers to the scope of the battleship portal without having to mess with the name. The distinction is there, but highlighting it would probably be awkward for the sake of the portal's layout... probably just add a sentance or two to the intro. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, we're not renaming the portal to OMT. :P I agree with bahamut. I diidn't look at this before, but WP:POG says that "the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content", so we don't want to divide these too much. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that few people would object to a portal called 'battleships' also covering battlecruisers - they're routinely covered in the same books and have the same lineage. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

/* Where we stand */

Thanks for adding the graph and the stub/start totals, but what happened to the B-class articles? Did they get lumped in with one of the other categories, or did you forget about them?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot them. I thought there was something not quite right about the table when I was done with it earlier, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks for reminding me :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How did you get to be an admin when you forget simple stuff like that? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I got through mostly on my canned answers to stock questions like "What's the difference between a block and a ban?" and my immense charm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the inclusion on non-country-specific articles, like Battleship, Battlecruiser, Pre-dreadnought battleship, Dreadnought, Battleships in World War II, List of battleships, List of battleships by country, List of battleship classes, List of sunken battleships, and maybe Ship of the line; was this deliberate? We could also consider some of the notable individuals and battles after the ships themselves are up. Also, don't forget that fanciful articles like battleship grey, Battleship (game), and Space Battleship Yamato need to be FA as well, of course. :P bahamut0013^words_deeds 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Review?

Sorry if this is obtrusive, but Requests for Feedback did not produce anything, and I don't think the general or MilHist peer review headers will work for somthing that is in the userspace. Should I move User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) to it's mainspace home, which is currently a redirect to the class page. Any last few tips (I think I have taken into account User: Sturmvogel 66's comment).

TIA,

Buggie111 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Before moving into the article space, try to address the following.
  • Try to expand the introduction to at least two paragraphs, that will help the article quality in the long run.
  • Your article uses an all "it" format, which is fine; however I caution that if this ship winds up in an FT nom there may be objections over the "she"/"it" issue; for the sake of covering all bases, I would look at the format of the other ships in the class and if most of them employ a she format I would think seriously about altering for uniformity's sake.
  • You infobox currently reports that the ship was commissioned two years before she was completed; if so, then I am incredibly impressed at the efficiency of Russian shipbuilders :)
  • Try and address the citation needed tags in the userspace before moving to the article space; it will make things easier for all involved.
  • Your dates need some consistency, either day month year or month day year; at present, the text alternates, and thats not good.
  • You mention admiral twice in the same sentence concerning the Japanese, once is enough.
  • See if you can cite the rest of the port author section, most of the last paragraph is missing a cite.
  • Where is the battleship today? The article doesn't say, but I would like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources on post-Jutland activities of WW1 battleships

One of my frequent comments on the articles which are being produced on World War I-era British and German battleships is that they often provide very limited coverage of their activities after the Battle of Jutland. While it is true that sources generally skip over this period, the ships didn't just sit at anchor. For instance, the Australian official history provides maps of HMAS Australia's activities in 1917 and 1918 which suggest that she spent a lot of time at sea, particularly in the later year (the relevant chapter is online here, but beware that it's a 3 MB download). The British official history also devotes two volumes to the RN's post-Jutland activities, which include the operations of the Grand Fleet - large libraries in Commonwealth contries should have a set of these volumes, and if not they can be purchased online here and here for the the fairly modest price of £18. While these books still don't devote a great deal of space to naval operations in the North Sea (particularly in 1917), they should allow some expansion and provide useful context. I think that Germany also produced an official history of the war, and this could be a useful source for information. I'm sure that there are also other sources which can be drawn on (surely someone has written a history of the tensions in the German fleet which led to mutiny in November 1918, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the German experience there is Daniel Horn's The German Naval Mutinies of World War I, and his edited edition of War, Mutiny, and Revolution in the German Navy; the World War I Diary of Seaman Richard Stumpf is a useful companion. For a more general look at the Imperial German Navy's end is David Woodward's The Collapse of Power: Mutiny in the High Seas Fleet. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I happen to have Richard Stumpf's diary on hand at the moment, and will have it until the beginning of April (and will probably have no problem getting it again later from the OSU library), if that would be useful to anyone. Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Australian official history has those maps, but that's about it for Australia's activities during this period. In fact it complains that it would have to wait for the relevant official British histories to be published to fully describe her actions. So just be advised that they're not a panacea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was; my point was the the Australian official history indicates that Australia put to sea regularly during the last years of the war and this needs to be covered in articles on her and similar ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another general reference which may be useful is Prados, John (2009). "Twilight of the High Seas Fleet". Naval History. 23 (2). Annapolis: United States Naval Institute. - this is available on ProQuest Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Phase layouts in userspace

I'm a lazy slacker right now, but I'd like to know if it would be possible for me to start working on phase 2,3 and 4 layouts in my userspace, so as to be able to port them to the project page instantly if we manage to get articles like USS_Constellation_(CC-2) to FA. Any thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, but that article ought to be redirected to the Lexington-class battlecruiser article... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. You didn't have to say so after your commenting at the Battlecruisers of Germany FT dsicussion. I got the point there. Buggie111 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

...that wasn't meant to be malicious. I just clicked the link and thought that it should be redirected; I had actually forgot about the German FT discussion point. My apologies, friend. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

'New' Hyperwar publication

The wonderful Hyperwar site has recently digitalised the US Navy publication 'Bureau of Ordnance: Guns and Mounts' which is available online here. Does OMT have a 'resources' section or similar where this kind of reference can be listed? Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No... but we can add it. :) Goodness, that is an awesome source; to all you people who are too lazy to click the link [;)], it has info on the 1.1", 20mm, 40mm, 3"/50, 4"/50, 5", 6"/47, 8"/55, 12"/50 (used on the Alaskas..!) and the 16"/45 and /50. Thanks Nick! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Cruisers: A Design History

Hi guys. To complete Lexington-class battlecruiser and USS Hawaii (CB-3), I'm going to need Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History OCLC 10949320. The problem is that the closest library that holds it is not in Michigan (ie outside of inter-library loan), and the cheapest copy I've ever seen is upwards of $160, way too high for me. Would anyone have access to it and be willing to collaborate on at least one of the articles? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have access to it, though I'm not sure if I have time to work on those articles for the next week or so. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found this entry in the base library's card catalog, but there are two issues: it's checked out, and the library will be closed for two weeks for renovations. I can try to stop by in April, if you can wait that long. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lex has been done for a little more than a year and Hawaii was mostly done a little less than a year ago, so I can wait. :-) If one of you guys would be able to get a hold of it sometime in the next month or two, that would be great. Alternatively, you could get it and scan the relevant pages—I was already able to obtain pp. 287–309 through a friend of User:Colosseum in that way, but I'm hoping other pages have more on Hawaii, and I really do need something more for the Lexingtons. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 13:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it's not checked out, it's in the reference section, which means I can't check it out. However, I can scan the pages you need an email them in April. I've sent you an email, please reply to I can attach files in a couple weeks. I can also refer to additional pages as needed; I can re-visit the library a few times a week if necessary. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

World cat is showing a copy at U of M? Otherwise I've requested the book through local loan. Probably have it next week. --Brad (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Guilty face* On the positive side, I learned today that (a) there is more than one page of library listings on Worldcat and (b) the Upper Peninsula is farther away from Lower Michigan than I would like (the first and second pages have only libraries in WI and IL). Thanks and apologies to everyone for this trouble. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Right.. WorldCat by zip code will show the books closest to you; not necessarily the one most available. Theoretically I should be able to have this book checked out for up to 9 weeks so there won't be any rush needed. --Brad (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't need scans? I just sweet-talked the librarian into keeping the book out of storage long enough to sneak in and make some photocopies. Well, let me know if you need anything else. bahamut0013^words_deeds 01:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We have it here at Ohio State, and I can check it out and scan pages as well. Let me know if you need help :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, bahamut -- but you and Parsec have my greatest thanks! :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I only use my powers for good, never for evil. ;) bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

South Dakota class 1920

The individual articles of the South Dakota class battleship (1920) need to be redirected to the class article. But this isn't a pure blank and redirect since the content of the individual articles needs to be incorporated into the class article first. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, the only thing that would not warrent a blank and redirect would be the USS Indiana, with that one sentance about her armor plate in use at the Panama Canal. Buggie111 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think much beyond that could be written though—a sentence in the class summary would serve the same purpose, I think. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

H class battleships

I've been working on List of battleships of Germany, and I've been thinking about the planned H-class designs from WWII. I'm a little unhappy with how our articles are set up right now, with just H class battleship (1939) and H class battleship (1944). Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 notes there were designs from 1941, 42, and 43; the 1944 article discusses these, as well as the 1939 as the starting point. I think it would make a lot more sense to have just one comprehensive article like H class battleship proposals, similar to the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article. Any thoughts on this? Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that this would be a better solution, especially as they never really cut steel for any one of them which would focus the article on the version chosen to be built as in the Russian BC articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that as well. If it gets too long, then we can split it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks very sensible to me as well Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, makes more sense. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

I made a stub on battleships of Greece. It's now a redirect to Decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. What happened? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was because the information was already in the other article? [3] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian and Chilean Redirects

I had changed the ships that were noted as redirects in these two sections to "Redirect class", then it occured to me that in so doing I couldn't be sure if the "Start class" article count would be correct. Should these entries in the table be listed as "Redirect class" or "Start class"? - The Bushranger (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand, the only time we use the redirect class is for ships that will never have an article (which is mainly just ships that were never completed, such as SMS Graf Spee or Japanese battlecruiser Takao). Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I understand now. Thanks! - The Bushranger (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

NH&HC on Facebook

Join it, if you're interested: http://www.facebook.com/navalhistory?ref=nf They post some interesting stuff. Most or all of it is already available at history.navy.mil, but this draws your attention to photos you may have missed. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll for the inclusion/exclusion of the Orlan class

I forgot to bring this up earlier, but we should establish a consensus for a position on the inclusion or exclusion of the Orlan-class large missile cruisers (NATO reporting name Kirov-class battlecruisers). While I admit that the idea of the scope is to cover gunships, from both a PR standpoint and an American/NATO mentality standpoint, these missile ships are battlecruisers for all intents and purposes. Sooner or later, someone's going to bring that up; and I prefer we gain some consensus for their inclusion/exclusion before we get asked about it. To this end, I've opened up a straw poll. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Is there a source which says that NATO actually designated them battlecruisers? The class article doesn't list one, and reading through this section it seems that people think it was officially designated a battlecruiser type. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1986 (I think 1986, not 100% sure though) edition of Janes all the worlds warships listed these vessels as battlecruisers, thereafter the term just stuck in the west. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, did the Russians themselves refer to them as a battlecruiser? Though the argument "The Russians refer to these ships as cruisers simply because their operational function is more similar to those of a cruiser simply because the battleship against battleship and battlecruiser against battlecruiser fights of world war two are long gone." does hold some sway with me, I know that Russian/Soviet military classifications and nomenclatures often conflict with that of western militaries anyway. I'm still stuck on the gun argument, though. Perhaps if battleships had continued, the definition may have been updated along with the times, but as it stands, it has not in any way but speculative. I really think that the application of the "battlecruiser" classification onto the class was merely describing a Russian orange as if it were a western apple; the Russians chose to call it a cruiser and not a battlecruiser for a reason.

Also, there was some discussion on this topic at Talk:Kirov class battlecruiser, but it's years old. I would like to point out that the anon's point about this class having battleship-class weaponry is flawed: guided missiles are guided missile cruiser, destroyer, and frigate-class weaponry. The Iowas did have guided missiles, but these were not the primary armament, and they were added on decades after construction. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All the sources I have read indicate that the Russians do not refer to these ships as battlecruisers, just missile cruisers. Like I noted above, the only reason they are referred to stateside as battlecruisers in that Janes classified them as such in one particular all the world's ships publication, and the name just stuck. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Include them

• If the sources call them battle cruisers, then they're battlecruisers. NATO did know a thing or two about ships... You can't have a featured topic about battleships or battlecruisers that excludes an entire class of BCs. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• IMHO, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a goose (or in this case, given sizes, should I call it a coot?) doesn't make it not a duck. Designations and armament aside, the "Kirov" class by displacement alone is head and shoulders above virtually any other warship built since World War 2 that didn't have a flattop. My position would be to include them, although of course I'd also want to see the Alaska class included... - The Bushranger (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Exclude them

• They are not gunships, so I say they ought to be left out. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty divided, but lean slightly more toward no than yes. The definitions of a battleship and a battlecruiser includes a ship having large size, armor, and guns... these ships have the first two, but not the guns. However, I suppose that if any other navy were to create a new class of battleships or battlecruisers, missiles would be the primary armament; indeed, the main reason why these ships are obsolescent today is because missiles have largely replaced big guns. Bt then, the Soviets themselves didn't call them battlecruisers, just NATO. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The US had such a proposal recently as 1996: Arsenal ship. The renderings included numbering starting at 72, the next number available in the US system for battleships. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Include, exclude; or, to battleship or not to battleship...

While pondering the tables on the project page, I noticed that the earlier Dutch "coast defense ships" aren't included. Now, including CDSes would open up massive cans o' worms, however De Zeven Provinciën, at least, is counted as a Battleship in Jane's Fighting Ships of World War One - along with its two predecessors - and they, along with the Swedish Svierge class, are as much battleships as the Greek Hydra class, which is included. Thoughts? - The Bushranger (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

5000-odd tons does not a battleship make. The Hydras need to be dropped from OMT and termed coast defense ships, just like their Austrian and Russian cousins that have already been removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed – having 11-inch guns != a battleship. They're more like cruisers that sacrifice speed for large guns. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both; the Hydras are termed "coastal defense ships" in Conway's 1906-1921. Parsecboy (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Count

I wasn't sure if lists were supposed to be included in the "Total" number, so I counted them. But I went through all the entries in the tables on the page and counted them up, since I'd noticed occasionally some of the entries in the -class sections of the "Where we Stand" table were changed without "Total" being changed. Now though those numbers match the lists. Whew!

...And also, there's now one hundred! One hundred articles and lists of GA status or higher! Ha ha ha ha!- The Bushranger (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Woot! Good work and a pat on the back goes to Parsec and Sturm, who have written most of them, and anyone else who has been helping out. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

List of naval battles between battleships

Might this list i recently created be pertinent to the project?XavierGreen (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It probably will once we move past the initial phase (i.e., all of the articles in the lists right now are GA or higher). Once we get all of the individual ship and class articles done, we'll move on to related articles, like gun and other equipment articles and the like. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reward Board offer within our special project's scope

The offer is to "get Kriegsmarine to GA, then FA status". WP:SHIPS barnstar up for grabs here :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it up, FAYGI. (for all you guy's information) Buggie111 (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century

Buggie111's work on the Regina Elena-class BBs has caused me notice that the stats for these ships in Jane's differ significantly from those in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. I've never seen this, but I have seen the equivalent airplane book which is nothing more that reprinted extracts of contemporary volumes with huge reliability issues. Does anyone else have this or has seen it. Can anyone compare it to a source of known reliability like Burt, Friedman or Raven & Roberts? If there is a problem, then I guess we'll have to post a notice of its unreliability so as not to confuse editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to see about order this tomorrow, but if it is going to be unreliable then I think I will postpone that move and see about ordering other more reliable books. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Jane's is, as I understand it, good for "color" and general information, but tended to print "official data" which can be wildly inaccurate, either by accident (reprinting "official" sources from abroad) or design (i.e. British Crown censorship). There's a reason people in the Business call it Jane's Frightening Slips. When it comes to commentary, it's admirable and a good period source, and the line drawings are great, but the statistics? Better grab the salt shaker. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Minas Geraes

I just checked out the stats for Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes' run in the selected anniversaries section on the 17th; she received almost 28k hits over the 17th and 18th. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

State of articles about incomplete batlteships

As I was wandering around project page today, I saw a comment next to USS Washington by a user named Chris141496. His edits migth be in good faith, but I personally think that we should redirect all articles about non-complete battleships. If Tosa, which is currently in ed's sandbox, coes out shining, then we might do somthing differently. Also, someone sould give a friendly pointer on Chris141496 's talkpage about not having enough notabulity or refs to create and article like USS South Dakota (BB-49), for which he currently has a user subpage dedicated. Buggie111 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on the ship—both Tosa and Washington were used for ordnance testing, so even though they were incomplete, there is enough information on them to warrant articles (ships like USS Hawaii (CB-3) are notable too). Ships like South Dakota, USS Constellation (CC-2), or USS Samoa (CB-6) are different in that they were started but scrapped on the slipway, meaning that articles on them will be about one paragraph max. On the flip side, his subpage would make for a great para in the main class article! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect BB-47 and Tosa, absolutely not. If USS Illinois (BB-65) can become a FA, then Washington and Tosa certainly can. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was jsut wondering where the sources for Washington would come from. I get it. Buggie111 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got Russian and Soviet Battleships by Stephen McLaughlin?

Since I don't have e-mail enabled, I'm just asking for someone with that book to round out User:Buggie111/ Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895). I don't know how useful it would be, but I think it should give somthing. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the essential reference to Russian BBs. I should have my copy out of storage in a couple of weeks and will then resume work on the rest of the Russian BBs that I haven't yet gotten to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Along with that, could you see if you or your library (cost on Amazon is 255$) have Warships of the Imperial Russian Navy Volume 1: Battleships by V.M.Tomitch. It seems like it also would be useful. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Online books in full, including Friedman(!)

Scribd.com is an interesting site. Search for "battleship," and you'll get many amateur powerpoints, Google Books-like limits for some books (the ones uploaded by publishing companies) ... and some copyvio'd books from normal users. Anyway, enjoy; be sure to save them in case they are deleted.

• Friedman's, U.S. Battleships: A Design History, the definitive book on this topic: [4]
• Skulski, The Battleship Fuso, [5]
• The German Navy Handbook, [6]
• Arms, Economics and British Strategy From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs, [7]
• Fm 30-58 MILITARY INTELLIGENCE IDENTIFICATION OF JAPANESE NAVAL VESSELS 1941, [8]
• Perry's Our Navy in the War [WWI], [9]
• Tully's Battle of Surigao Strait, [10]
• Excerpts from the Indiana University Press on various WWII battles, [11]
• This holds many books on air warfare, [12]

Tangent point: Parsec, take a look at this :D —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the heads up. Looking through Friedman fully for the first time though, I'm struck by the poor nature of the referencing and a less than objective writing style (describing decisions as "criminal", for example). Friedman is no D. K. Brown or Raven and Roberts. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The referencing is all in the back, I think—he used official papers almost exclusively. If you can look past the non-objective writing style, it's by far the best book on U.S. battleship designs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, "poor nature". I have some experience of the General Board hearings referred to in Chapter Eight. They are an absolute nightmare to go through, and it certainly would have behooved NF to have been more specific with the details. But what, ho! As you say, there's nothing better. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As a note, external links to copyright violating website (including using the url= tag in references sections) should not be included in articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, Nick. We can use this as a library resource, but not a web source. But for the most part, we are already actively trying to end our reliance on the web sources, and I consider them a nice addendum to published books. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And my new copy of Friedman is even now rumbling towards home! Handy though, if I'm on the road.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already got one from my local library, to be put to use on the Maine class. Buggie111 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Another addition.

Would K-1000 battleship qualify? I know it's about a hoax, but it's still about a battleship. Thoughts?

Given that it was a deliberate deception operation, I think it's out of scope. Including it would be a bit like adding HMS Centurion (1911) to the King George V class ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How's Cenutrion a hoax? Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

She was a battleship, but she only pretended to be HMS Anson (of the World War 2 King George V class - I just noticed that she was part of the World War 1 KGVs!). Fleet tender would have been a better comparison. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say K-1000 qualifies - but as part of Phase V. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say what Bushranger did. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another addition

I was wondering what will be the elad article for the final topic? Capital ship? Battleship? List of battleships? List of battlecruisers, Dreadnought, Battlecruiser? Some of these are at FA but others may need work. I'm confused. Buggie111 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say Battleship and Battlecruiser. Capital ship is too broad, including bird farms and earlier stuff. Dreadnought and pre-dreadnaught should be subtopics of battleship and I am not really sure where the lists fit in.Yoenit (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that Battleship is fairly obvious. We can use battlecruiser as a sub-topic. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-Montanas

I'm wondering about the note on List of battleships of the United States Navy that says "even battleships BB 72 through BB 78 were projected in 1942. Armament was to consist of 8 × 18 in (4x2), 20 x 5 in (10x2). The project did not proceed past the drawing stage; none were ordered." This should have an article at some point, shouldn't it? - The Bushranger (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This book, from the Naval Institute, seems to contradict that. It says there were speculations that the Navy was considering 20" gunned battleships with #s 72-78, but it simply wasn't the case. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Did this ever into a realistic planning phase? I think it would be a hard sell that a concept without a name or project is notable enough. I imagine that the brass would have waited until most of the Montanas had keels laid before moving on to the next big thing and giving it any serious attention. It might be worth just developing the various post-Montana concepts (like Arsenal ship) in the list article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the book I linked above is concerned, this alleged project was an invention of the press. I'd say it shouldn't even be mentioned in the list article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that. Ah well, it's good for dreaming "what-if"... - The Bushranger (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything mentioned in any other source? bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

HMS Incomparable

I cleaned this up a little, but I'm not at all sure that this is honestly notable since it appears to have been strictly Fisher's paper project. Roberts, Campbell and Burt don't even mention this so I'm fairly certain that the DNC never even put pen to paper to actually design it. To my mind that speculative nature puts it beyond the pale of our project as even the Dutch, German and Japanese projects that we do include actually had a naval architect invest design time (with the possible exception of the late-war German projects). What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no naval architect even designed it and it was only in Fisher's head, it probably isn't very notable and probably deserves just a small section in his article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, even the L 20 α class battleship, which was about as late-war as anything the Germans designed, at least got into the design study stage (assuming we're talking about WWI). Regardless, I wouldn't object to not including Incomparable, given the nature of the project. Parsecboy (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As this ship doesn't seem to have ever gotten beyond the rough design concept stage, I think that it would be fine to leave it out. It seems notable enough for an article though (the concept of a giant battleship with only a 10 year planned lifespan is alarming!) Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's definately interesting. With three solid sources, I'd say that yeah, it's worth an article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What 3 sources? The article itself only references Breyer. The 3 sources I mentioned earlier don't reference the project at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly say she deserves an article, seeing as there were drawings of the ship and draft specifications, at least. Whether it's part of the project though, I dunno, is it a BC or the ultimate LLC? - The Bushranger (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see that one of them only references Yamato, but the web source still counts. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• so...Phase V for Incomparable, then? >_> - The Bushranger (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

USS Recruit

USS Recruit is something that should probably be added to Phase V (and is, right now as I type, up for DYK!). - The Bushranger (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes... though I have to ask: where the hell did it wind up? It's not like it's easy to overlook a warehouse full of cut and shaped wood. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Alas, I couldn't google up a peep about it after its "departure" for Coney Island. Finding out what happened would probably require digging around in the dead-tree archives of the local newspapers aroudnd there, I'd suspect. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you try Google News' news archive? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and searching for '"USS Recruit"' turns up...absolutely nothing at all. Ditto for '"Landship Recruit"', 'Battleship "Coney Island"' and 'Battleship "Luna Park"'. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jauréguiberry class battleship

I'm very much minded to delete this stub as it incorrectly groups together French battleship Bouvet, French battleship Jauréguiberry and French battleship Masséna. All of which differed significantly from each other in terms of armor and superstructure arrangements. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Martel is tagged as contradict, so I think we could flick that stub into the trash. If the guys at FTC complain aobut it and "cherry-picking", we could get somthing put together. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Conway's 1860-1905 says it all when it says "five similar ships but with sufficient differences to prevent them being considered as one class." Nuke it, I say. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuked/slaughtered/slain/deleted/whatever the correct term is ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's 'Nuked from orbit'. It's the only way to be sure. ;) - The Bushranger (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain! Their ship is escaping! Buggie111 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, our torpedoes took her out just before she got away. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)