Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Navweaps.com again and Princess Royal FAC

There's a discussion on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 nomination about whether Navweaps.com is "highly reliable". I've made my comments, but have received only a deafening silence in return. If you wish to use this resource at FAC then more comments are needed. Please read the article and give your comments as well; it lacks readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not again... <facepalm> bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, again. Nobody but me has commented, but let's not drop this ball.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Any idea why this was archived without passing? The closer didn't say anything. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, no supports means it will be archived after two weeks no matter how many comments have been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

España class Battleship

Hey, I am amassing Spanish sources to begin re-writing España class battleship, and perhaps the articles of the three ships of its class. Is anybody aware of any good English sources? Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's an article in Warship International in 2007.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II by Garzke and Dulin Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

^^^^^ Ditto. That's a very extensive book. Buggie111 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I happen to have Garzke & Dulin in my possession at the moment, let me know if you want/need help as far as that's concerned. Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the publishers of Warship International to see if I could buy whatever issue that article came out in (there website doesn't list back issues later than 2006). Garzke's & Dulin's book is a little pricier than I'd like to pay for (cheapest I found was ~$50), since I'm not that into battleships (although, a book I bought on the España class came out to about $40, largely due to shipping), but it does have a pretty meaty section on Spanish battleships (and, I mean, there was only one class in service during the Second World War). I won't start editing the article for some time (I want to finish two economics-related articles, first); if you have a scanner, perhaps you could scan in the relevant pages (~10) over the course of the next following weeks? If not, perhaps you could photocopy the pages and send it to me by mail; I would be more than glad to pay for the postage and the envelope. Whatever works. Thanks guys. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that you're going to find a better source than the Warship International article, which is cited in the España page. Nearly sixty pages of very good, well-illustrated research. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, having looked on the 'net, I'm glad I subscribed and got it through the door. The cheapest I can see it for is about $60. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon, I just looked over the relevant pages on the Espana class in G&D, and it's really not much there, about a page and a half of text. I can scan it for you, but I don't know if it'll be a terribly great help. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Okrety liniowe typu «Espana» (Okrety Wojenne numer specjalny 22) . Yes i know its in polish - but it have really huge amount of information and numbers. And numbers are international :). PMG (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Piotr, thanks for pointing me to the Polish book. Unfortunately, I can't understand the most important part—the content—, but perhaps someone who does know Polish can add in any missing information or reference the page numbers (multiple book referencing, a la Richard Cantillon). Parsecboy, I think every little bit can help to piece together the history. Simon, I contacted the publisher (hopefully they will respond). Where did you find it online, by the way? JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the publisher writes that that issue is no longer available for purchase from them. Perhaps in a couple of weeks I am willing to put down the money for that issue, if I can find it online. That Polish source is actually really good, as well. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Polish version was a draft form of the final Warship International article, so one of the authors told me at any rate. I had a look on www.bookfinder.com and Amazon and by putting in either Warship International 44 or 2007 I got results. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon, you're over in Cali, right? Perhaps one of the major universities there has a subscription and can ILL it to you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can check (how?), although if not would there be any hope of appealing to photocopy the article? I know it's long, but it doesn't have to all at once (over the month, maybe?). I am more than willing to pay for the photocopying (in advance, if need be) through paypal, and I am also more than happy to pay for postage and anything else. However much it costs, it's undoubtedly less than the $80 a used issue costs. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the article, but I'm afraid that I'd be uncomfortable in sharing it, as I know one of the authors and the draughtsman for WI. Normally I don't have qualms about this kind of thing, but in this case ... --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jon, does Cali have something akin to Michigan's Melcat? I don't have access to WI, sorry. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, OSU's editions of WI only go up to 2002. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about what universities carry what. I am, unfortunately, not attending a university this semester (California education budget cuts). I looked at UCSD's online library catalog, but found nothing. Amazon.co.uk has a copy that I am willing to buy (~$30), even if the shipping was high, but it doesn't ship to the United States. The cheapest copy I can find in the US is ~$80, and I am definitely not willing to pay that all on my own (just for Wikipedia—most other publications I buy I use as references elsewhere); I already put $40 down to buy a Spanish-language source (which may be very good, but it'd be nice to have another major reference). JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just scanned through worldcat, and you might have some luck with the LA public library. I can't tell what volumes they have (see the listing here), it just says "1-" which to me implies they have every edition, but I could be wrong. It might be worth a call to see, perhaps you can get it through interlibrary loan. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if they only have the 2009 issue (see here). JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you talk to your local library, they should hopefully be able to request a photocopy of the specific article rather than a loan of the journal - document supply rather than strict ILL. Alternatively, you can request an electronic copy from the British Library... Shimgray | talk | 17:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

...which, at a quick check, would cost you either £14.25 or £16.75; $22.55 or $26.50. Less than the actual journal copy, but probably cheaper to file an ILL request at the library. Shimgray | talk | 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. I am buying the electronic version, and just printing it out myself. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to drop me a line if you've similar problems tracking stuff down in future - this is my day job, after all, and I may as well put it to use! Shimgray | talk | 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Just finished reading a printed copy of the purchased article (unfortunately, you lose access to it once you print it! I might have to scan in the printed copy for personal use), and it's great. Also, I just bought a copy of Fitzsimond's (ed.) Illustrated History of Weapons and Warfare vol. 8, which one of the articles suggests has information on the España. Anybody know of anything else? Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an ego boost

I just wanted to mention how cool OMT is. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review: more than a fair share of it is devoted to ships in our scope, with the names of our members appearing everywhere. If anyone ever doubts that you guys do an amazing job in article improvement, they need to get smacked in the head. Someday, this project will go down in Wikipedia history as one of the most successful collaborations. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also cool: 5 of the 7 editors who recieved 40 or more votes at the coordinator election are members of OMT. Congrats to your winners, and to the new Lead Coordinator, Parsecboy! bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also cool. After two more GT's get promoted (Which will happen very soon, as we have four OMT ones in the queue), we will have satisfied our short term FT/GT goal! Buggie111 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirov class, battlecruiser or super heavy cruiser?

I noticed the Kirov class battlecruiser isnt on the list of Soviet battlecruisers, is this an omission or are they considered to be heavy cruisers of some type? Bonewah (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

They're more accurately referred to as a large guided missile cruiser. For example, O'Brien's Technology and naval combat in the twentieth century and beyond refers to them simply as missile cruisers, Friedman's The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapons systems, 1997-1998 also refers to them as such. Vego's Soviet naval tactics states "The Kirov class, considered in the West to be a battle cruiser, is classified by the Soviets as a nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser." Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems analogous to the Alaska class cruiser which is sometimes a heavy cruiser, sometimes a battlecruiser. Why list the Alaska class and not the Kirov class? Bonewah (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that the Alaskas were labelled CAs by the USN for political reasons, and essentially are traditional BCs - BB-caliber guns, cruiser armor, and BC mission (destruction of enemy cruisers). OTOH, the Kirovs are armed entirely with missiles, as an offensive anti-surface ship (essentially to take out US carriers with cruise missiles). Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet designation is translated at large missile ship; they were called battlecruisers in the English-language press for lack of a sexier term. So, no, I don't think that they're battlecruisers in the traditional sense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, its not just weight or designation, but the whole package of weight, armor, weaponry, role etc that makes a battleship or battlecruiser. Is that about right? Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. BB-s have to be distinguished from Central battery ironclads, which is the topic of the thread above us. Buggie111 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this topic can be found here and here. The previous consensus was that the Kirovs were more guided missile cruisers than battlecruisers, and should be put into Phase V because of thier ambiguous nature. Our criterion does address weapons, armor, size, speed, and role. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Your opinions are requested over at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates#Good topic nominations on the proper layout of the topic box for Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier. I'd really prefer not to have this drag out so please take a look and offer an opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New humor Page

I was bored. Buggie111 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Parts from Almirante Latorre being used in Mikasa?

Hey guys. In 2007, an IP added text to Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre, saying "The Chilean Government has granted Japanese request to use parts from this ship to restore the Battleship Mikasa, which was in severe state of desrepair since the end of World War II, so many parts from the Almirante Latorre can now be seen aboard the Battleship Mikasa." (they added similar text to Mikasa too.) I can't find any cite for this in any of my sources – would anyone happen to be able to confirm? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems implausible to me. Chile and Japan don't exactly have warm fuzzy relations (in fact, Chile–Japan relations is a red link). bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that both ships were British built (so probably used many interchangeable parts) and Almirante Latorre was probably the only BB to be scrapped in Japan in the post-occupation era it sounds plausible to me. Mikasa has been a museum ship since the 1920s so the relationship between the two countries wouldn't have really affected any request to salvage spare parts from Almirante Latorre to keep Mikasa in good condition. That said, I can't find a source to support this in Google books or via a Google search. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have somthing, just wait one sec. Buggie111 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I was certain I had somthing. No go. Buggie111 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Got a tabloid article here. Unfortunately this may well be circular referencing as La Cuarta doesn't seem to have a very high reputation for factchecking. Logic says it is certainly possible as Almirante was scrapped at the same time the Mikasa restoration project. Your best bet for finding a proper source are gonna be Japanese/chilean newspapers of that time period, but we are gonna need a native speaker for that. Yoenit (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody got a NYT subscription and can check this out? [1] Yoenit (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

IJN Yamato scheme image at FPC

The image File:Yamato1945.png has been nominated for feature picture status, and this nomination is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IJN Yamato scheme. I think that it would be helpful if members of this task force could comment on whether the depiction is accurate. It looks fine to me, but others might spot problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Script for updating progress?

Is there some kind of script that updates the progress of this project? I ask because a number of the ships listed in Phase 1 are actually higher rated then the list shows. Id be happy to update the list, but if there is automatic way of doing it, that would be much more time efficient then having me go through them all. Bonewah (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, it seems i was mistaken about the articles I though were GA rather than A. My mistake. Bonewah (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is only partly automated. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive 4#Autoupdate of the progress table?. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Move of special project pages

I've moved this special project out from under the maritime warfare task force to sit under the main military history project proper, per WT:MILHIST#Proposal for restructuring task forces. This has resulted in a large number of redirects from all the subpage moves; I've fixed the most obviously broken ones, and will clean up the ones affecting the assessment categories shortly, but please keep an eye out for the remaining redirects and fix links to point to the new page locations when the opportunity arises. Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Iowa class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Iowa class battleship is now open, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody check Cruisers of World War Two An International Encyclopedia against a possible copyvio?

Bringing this here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup: "A Japanese Wikipedian insists that the article HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007 section History, 1st paragraph is almost duplicate from M.J.Whitley, Cruisers of World War Two An International Encyclopedia, ISBN 1-55750-141-6, p.114." Could somebody please check this for me? Yoenit (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He's correct; it's a copy vio.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, could you or anybody else check some other cruiser articles created by MiniEntente (talk · contribs), such as HMS Argonaut (61) (copyvio of uboat.net), HMS Charybdis (88) and HMS Phoebe (43) against the entries from that encyclopedia as well? I don't think this is just a one-off copyright violation. Yoenit (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Charybdis and Phoebe are OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan/Unified FT

We'll I've begun the task of creating a unified FT. So far, I've gotten all of Germany's battleships as well as Austria-Hungary's and some of the American BBs. Can someone help me out here in finishing this? We should update this as we update the tables as well :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I think you're jumping the gun a bit doing all that work. Lots of sub topics to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I don't think we'll be listing every article like you're doing it but instead utilizing the sub-topic approach with BB as the lead and the list articles and sub-topic links. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, the idea of keeping this updated makes me want to chew the head off of a kitten. Waaaaaay too premature. bahamut0013^words_deeds 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks. There goes half an hour of work....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 13:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that was a bit harsh of me. I apologize, I was up late and feeling grumpy. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better will be UT with all battlecruisers. PMG (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

PMG is kind of right. We are much closer to that, but I again note that we are far enough away that maintenance would be a headache for a while to come. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We can keep that to coem back to when we have most of them finished, but for now I suggest aUt for BC's. And are we using List of BB's or just BB as our lead? Buggie111 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article on the ship type is the lead with the list of ships as the secondary articles in the topic, with subtopic links to the topics which are lead by those articles. For ex: Battlecruiser lead, with List of battlecruisers of Germany, List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy as the individual articles and they would have subtopic links there as well. I can mock something up to illustrate this better. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, MBK. While it would be impressive to have a FT with 500+ articles in it, it'd be really unwieldy and might just rankle the FTC people, which is not something we need to do. This solution will make it much more streamlined. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But would it be List of battlecruisers in the lead, or just Battlecruiser or a combo of the two? Buggie111 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It'd be like this:

Battlecruiser

7 articles

List of battlecruisers of the United States Navy

List of battlecruisers of Russia

List of battlecruisers of Germany

List of battlecruisers of Japan

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

HMAS Australia

Perhaps the main problem would be to pick the topic image. Maybe Invincible since she was the first? Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can i have a question - why MT don`t use subtopics ?In this situation "top topic" can have inside 5 subtopics. ITs some problem about rules or what ? PMG (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the general idea. For example, this will eventually be one of the subtopics of the main topic (unless I'm wrong about using sub-topics of course). Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We kinda forgot Australia's battlecruiser.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - but your topic can be something like this:

List of battleships of Germany

6 articles

Kaiser Friedrich III class battleship ^(subtopic)

Wittelsbach class battleship^(subtopic)

Braunschweig class battleship^(subtopic)

I am just asking. PMG (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Phases

Can we please get rid of the phases section on the main page and in the tabs? We're barely past being 20% complete, and the sheer scope just adds clutter and deters potential new members. (disclaimer: I think the project should only cover the BB/BC's themselves, but that's barking up a whole new tree) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think its a bad idea because there is work being done on those articles from time to time, as well as possibly attract editors who might not want to work on the ship articles, but might enjoy biography work or the like. I disagree with the clutter assessment as well; and think that removing them might actually confuse a potential member into thinking that the work is done when the ships are all FA. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I just keep thinking "less is more" -- fewer tabs will provide more focus on our current phase, and to be honest, there is no work being done on the other articles barring two from Parsec. I know we all like to live ambitiously, but we're still years away from moving into Phase II. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Horse racing

Today's Featured Article happen to have shaken something loose from my memory that I wanted to share with everyone here: don't forget to keep track of your eligibility to receive the triple crown. This operation moves as a pretty stead clip most of the time, so it shouldn't be too hard to earn a triple crown, or upgrade your triple crown as the case may be. For the hell of it, I would challenge each of us to obtain the Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown by the time all is said and done. With all the workload we will have, that should be fairly easy to do, don't you agree? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm galloping along, already have a GA, waiting for the FC and DYK to come along. Whadda'bout you? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And I challenge everyone to a Four Award. Just one. Buggie111 (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to leave a quick note here and inform everyone that I decided to kill two birds with one stone such as it was: since the armament of the Iowa class battleships article was originally a part of the first rewrite of the Iowa class battleship article I have decided to readd the bulk of the article's content into the rewrite I'm working on so that I can address the problems with both at the same time. I hope that is ok with everyone, but if anyone objects to this method speak now and I will coordinate with the objector(s) to make sure that the efforts to improve the article don't end up wasting one or both party's time and energy. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How long is that going to make the class article? The Iowas had many more weapons then any other battleship in history, and I don't think we can fully cover them in one article. That's just me though... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but probably not more types of weapons. As for me, go ahead. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh probably more types of weapons. Your standard WWII battleship had the heavy guns (14" or bigger), secondary guns (5" or bigger), heavy antiaircraft guns and light antiaircraft guns. the Iowas had all that, but were fitted with missile tech in the 1980's plus new types of guns. Plus being the longest-serving battleships in the US Navy we've got a lot of information on each of the guns. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ed: We are not going to have the two re-merged, I am simply going to work on the armament article's contents along with the class article. When the rewrite goes live the rewritten armament section will be added to the armament article so that the two can both undergo reassessment to make sure they are up to date. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cam, exactly, they definitely had more types of weapons than any other battleship. Tom, I'm confused. Are you saying that you are going to duplicate the content? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that he means redundancy, knowing Tom, I'd say he's aiming for consistancy. But only Tom can say for sure, my mind-reading skills are limited to a two mile radius. I would be okay with the latter, but if the two did have virtually the same content, I would prefer a merge. I know that article size and length were the main reason it was split off, however, I don't think that the weapons section on the class article (as well as the section on each ship's articles as well) was ever summarized concisely enough to warrant a separate article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that too, but I wasn't sure. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about what I am doing here, so allow me to elaborate a little in hopes that it will help clear up the confusion: This is version 1.0, the earliest featured variant of the Iowa class battleship article as it had been updated prior to the first major rewrite, and this is version 2.0, the first major rewrite I did to haul the article out of the danger zone and get it updated to what was at the time the current FA-standard. Note the large armament section, which is much more detailed with regards to the guns and missile systems in use on the class. At the time article's size was such that I was asked to see about reducing it; the solution I came up with was to outsource the weaponry info and create a whole new article article: Armament of the Iowa class battleship. Now that the current Iowa class article is being rewritten from what is essentially scratch, I am taking the opportunity to fix the major issues with the current version of the armament article (which has since been substantially reworked by FTC Gerry (talk · contribs)) by moving a recent copy of the armament article into my sandbox to stand in for the weaponry section. This is going to make the article large, in all probability too large for most people to comfortably accept, so when the rewrite is finished the rebuilt armament section will be condensed as it was back in 2007 and the bulk of the material - now up to date with current FA standards - will be moved back to the armament article. That is the plan in a nut shell, and the beauty of the this approach is that we can preemptively strike at the people who will complain that armament article is in need of an FAR (which it is, btw) and at the same time bring the class article and the armament article back into sync with one another so that the class article's information is a shortened version of the armament article that shares information rather than having the two seem off due to differences in care taking. If Gerry's information is good enough we may even be able to eek out a third article here - the long sought after "radar and electronic warfare systems of the Iowa class battleship" article that I have been hoping to write for years now but haven't been able to due to a frustrating lack of sources. Questions anyone, or did the above explanation clear up the confusion? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arizona

Hey all, this just occurred to me, and I think it's a worthwhile goal. Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor - I think we should get USS Arizona (BB-39) to FA for the anniversary. Any thoughts? (Next year will also see the 95th anniversary of Jutland, but I think I have an article or two for that ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sturm and I were planning on this, actually – I bought Stillwell's Battleship Arizona: An Illustrated History, and I think Sturm has a few sources himself. We could widen the collaboration, though. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got the official damage and salvage reports that were reprinted in Warship International so we should be pretty good to go. Plus the Osprey book on the fortifications of Hawaii so we can add the fate of her turrets as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! You must wait until 2016; everyone knows that all the good anniversiaries come in multiples of 25. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking by 2016, we'd be completely done with Phases I and II, and we'd be ready to have Attack on Pearl Harbor up to FA :P Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Ed, that sounds excellent - my sources are somewhat limited (though I do have Friedman's US Battleships, which may come in handy somewhere along the way) but I can always help find things in Google Books and OSU's library. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one thinking about this rather important milestone :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If we all worked on it, AOPH would be very manageable – easily resolved or less conflicts from fringe viewpoints and less writing for all of us.

OSU's library would probably be a great help... NMU's library doesn't have much. We have a rather large amount of centennials coming up in the next decade! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, any ship that fought during WWI will be up for a TFA, and we're going to get into the 75th anniversaries for WWII-era ships as well. Exciting times, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They are :) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Indefatigable commissioned in Feb '11 so maybe I'll put it up for a TFA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got four or five books on Pearl Harbor, plus easy access to interlibrary loans to get my hands on anything from Conway's to Breyer. I'll also work my usual Technical and ACR review magic. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've missed the date on EFF. Gotta wait till next year. Buggie111 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a great idea. Somebody set up a collaboration page, and let's get to work! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is wishful thinking, but it would be exciting if we could get AOPH and related articles to FA/GA and make a FT and FPort. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that there isn't really enough content to make a portal around, unless we played a little fast and loose with scope and made it broad to the point that it overlaps on a bunch of others. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess not, but is there a such thing as a Featured Book? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. there's been discussion, but nothign ahs come of it. Buggie111 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

French warship plans

[2] Try this site for the most detailed warship plans I think I have ever seen (they even have drawings for the catapults, etc). I believe they are all works of the French government, but I do not know whether that would make them PD. (for a good example, try the top left picture of Richelieu here) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found a huge, plump book on Massena, and I have a draft of richielu on my laptop. The MAssena book is in Russian, but so what. I think we should launch a collab to get these old geezers, (Frwench pre-dreads), to GA.` Buggie111 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report in theSignpost

Hey guys, I just spotted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject_desk#Schedule, which says we are up to be interviewed for the 20 December Signpost (I requested they interview us back in August). Whoo, more publicity! ;) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I'm a little surprised they've agreed to run it—some of the comments I've seen suggest that they're tired of MilHist getting an interview every year—but I suppose you can't argue with success! :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, seems like we were just on there? That must have been the WPSHIPS interview I'm thinking of. :P I'd like to be in on this one, if that's not a problem for anyone. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ditto. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ditto again. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Size does matter ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too late to say ditto, I presume? Buggie111 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Buggie, I had dibs. Besides, they only want the handsome editors, and I've been vouched for my attractiveness. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I only wanted to say ditto. You can be interviewed. :( Buggie111 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Awww, sorry Bug, you can say "ditto" as much as you like. You don't have to be dashing to do that. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Aww shucks.. I always thought I was "dashing". Guess I'm just another Prole. Buggie111 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Guess there is already a set of people who want to be interviewed. Oh well. What really matters here is to get the word out on this task force. Good luck guys! Be sure to include our work on A-H Buggie!--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As I remember, I'm not an interviewee. Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind. It'll be a new experience. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OMT in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on Operation Majestic Titan for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you've all got this :)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Our Signpost interview is up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/WikiProject report. I'm really happy that we came across as a fun-loving bunch. I think MILHIST tends to suffer from the stereotype as a bunch of stuffy academics or crazy gun-lovers, and this semi-frathouse feel should dispel that pertty fast! Oh, and Ed, I had no idea you were so young. I had you pegged as at least a grad student. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. planes r still cool. Someday, the big guns will be mounted on the bird farms.

Well, if I was going to grad school, I'd only be a year to a year + 1/2 away. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A few lists

Along the same lines, I found List of battleships of Denmark, List of Danish steam battleships, and List of battleships of the Royal Swedish Navy hiding out in Category:Lists of battleships. I think the ships listed are actually ships-of-the-line, and not battleships as we define them. List of naval ships of the Netherlands seems to cover only battleships and some iconclads. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Phase I doesn't even have these nations listed.
Similarly, I found List of battleships by country, which covers SOTLs and monitors as well... and it really seems to smack of OR or SYNTH or both; the one ref only talks about 20th century battleships, which encompasses prettymuch the entirely of our scope. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Denmark and Sweden had little coast-defense ships that don't count. The Netherlands (Dutch) are listed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia

I noticed that the redirect to SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia (Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia) was in Category:Battleships. This gives me two questions: is she actually a battleship (or battlecruiser) instead of an armored cruiser, and is there any merit for categorizing the redirect? I don't think so on either question. Another odd thing I noticed about it: it's referencing the German Wikipedia article... I thought that referencing any article on Wikipedia was bad practice because of the COI and self-reference. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sokol says otherwise. I'd say that she is a cruiser.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 20:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't reference the German WP, it was translated from it Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an armored cruiser - she predates BCs by nearly 2 decades and was clearly not built as a battleship (only a 4-inch belt, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the category. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Battlesub

I'm thinking that French submarine Surcouf (N N 3) might be a candidate for Phase V, as she was a combination of a sub and a battlecruiser. Any objections? 8 inch guns might be a bit of a stretch, but I think that if the concept would have been allowed to evolve, we'd have seen something firmly in our scope. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also found the British M class submarine. Similar idea. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them. At this point the miscellaneous page is accepting anything that could be construed as being within our scope, and since its going to be the last phase to go active we will have plenty of time to decide if this is in fact something we want to have within our scope. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That might be a tad cavalier for me. I'd like to get at least one more opinion. I'd like to assume that the lack of commentary is from the holidays being a busy time, rather than apathy. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that neither of those boats is anything to do with a battleship. Surcouf was modelled on a cruiser concept, not a battleship (or battlecruiser) concept. The Ms are a truly fascinating design, but also (apart from battleship-calibre armament) nothing to do with battleships. I don't know what's meant to be in the scope of Phase V, but unless it includes miscellaneous interesting warships, I wouldn't include either of these. Worth asking the question though! The Land (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, Phase V is indeed miscellany. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably "miscellaneous battleship-related topics" rather than "miscellaneous warship topics"? I don't object either way, though, just point out that those subs were related to battleships in the way that pigs are related to chimpanzees. The Land (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice comparison. I don't think they should be included per The Land (your name is such a contradiction), and I question why Samuel B. Roberts and U-29 are already there... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure, those two were copied from User:The Bushranger/OMT Phase V when I created the page. If I had to guess, I'd say that Roberts was because she had the nickname "the destroyer escort that fought like a battleship" from Samar and Leyete, while U-29 was the only submarine known to be sunk by a battleship (copied straight from thier articles).

Of course, I'm gonna ignore Ed as extremely biased since you don't like having phases II-V; so you don't count, you hater jerk. :P bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A few points for discussion

Hi all. Happy (impending) New Year, and I hope that the coming year will be as successful for us as the one now coming to a close. I wanted to raise a few points among us before the end of the year just to see if anyone has interest in discussing and/or elaborating on the ideas presented.

• After thinking about this I wanted to ask if there would be any interest in creating a unique version of the titan's cross for when we complete each of the phases to commemorate those of us who worked in the phase. For example, we could create a Titan's cross with Oak Leaves to be given to everyone who worked on Phase I when we finish it, then a Titan's Cross with Swords for when we finish Phase II, and a Titan's Cross with Diamonds for when we finish Phase III, and so forth in that manner. In my mind's eye, if we do this, it would be awarded to everyone who is listed as being active within our project for the given phase being worked on with a provision that it be retroactively available to anyone who joins our project after the completion of a phase but works to ensure that article(s) from the previous phases remain worthy of their GA, A, or (ideally) FA rating.
• Given that the name of this project is "Operation Majestic Titan", I wondered if anyone would be interested in assigning code names to the phases based on the names and/or duties of the actual titans. For example, Phase I could be codenames "Oceanus" for the titan said to control the seas, Phases IV could be codenamed "Gaia" for the earth on which humans who operated the ships came from, etc. I'm not going to force this onto the project, but I thought that it might be interesting to raise the point just to see if anyone thought it could be interesting for those visiting. Who knows, it may generate interest in Greek Mythology as a whole :)
• How are we to handle the names of the battleships listed here? By virtue of the fact that OMT encompasses everything concerning battleships and battlecruisers it seems appropriate to me that the namesakes of the these ships should be included in OMT too, but that creates a problem insofar as we would need to bring all US states into the project by virtue of that fact that all but one bore the names of states, and all of the royals and others whose names grace the battleships and battlecruisers of the UK, and so on. That does seem to be beyond the scope of our project, but in the interest of being thorough I thought I'd bring this up so we can discuss it and see what kind of consensus develops.

If anyone else would like to add anything to the above points for discussion please do so, I'd be happy to hear back from anyone on points that they feel warrant discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, if someone's willing to put in the time.
• Might make things a bit more confusing, but I'm neutral on the idea.
• No. Very much outside the scope of the project.
• Why must we focus so much on what we are going to do when we reach our goal? We have a very long way to go; we are currently at 37.7% good articles or higher for Phase I alone. Let's write articles and actually break through, say, 75% GAs before we start planning what we will do when we get there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed's got the point on awards: we can think about giving ourselves nice shineys when we are realistically close to the goal(s). If I start ginning up new graphics now, they will either sit unused for many months (more likely a year or two) and possibly forgotten, or they will get used for lesser purposes and dilute the significance. It's a good idea, and I'll consider doing some work closer to (and probably go with a motif that has significance to each phase).

The Greek names are a good idea, but I think it would be a bit confusing. I like the kitsch of it, but it's probably not practical for internal use and externally, it would probably confuse editors.

I'm with Ed on the namesakes idea. We really don't need to double the workload for something that is only tangentially related at best. I'm sure some of them are already in good shape, but do you think any of us can or are interested in bringing Yamato to FA? (it's a disambig page!)

I love how you are an ambitious dreamer, Tom. Why don't you put some of that initiative with the Iowa-class PR you've got open now? bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Design 1047 battlecruiser

An IP editor has made extensive changes and additions to the "Armament" section of this featured article. They appear to be referenced, so I'm holding off on the Revert-AGF button, but those with more expertise should probably take a good hard look at it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, look at that, I'm not the only one interested in the 1047s! I'll look into this more tomorrow, but offhand I'll need to find a different source for the Spanish 20mm info and a page number for Campbell. I have the latter on my computer, so only the former is difficult. Thanks for the notification, by the way – I somehow missed the edits on my watchlist. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this special project

A discussion concerning the manning of ships in general has begun over at the main military history talk page. The outcome of the discussion could potentially have some major impact for us, so I thought I would leave this message here just to let everyone know so they can sound off in the discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

China's "battleships"

An editor that hasn't joined OMT added a couple of Chinese turret ships to the Phase I page. I'm not 100% sure if Chinese turret ship Dingyuan and Chinese turret ship Zhenyuan meet our classification as battleships, and thus, our scope. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know this was discussed at one point, but I can't find it in the archives. I think the general consensus was that they were more properly ironclad turret ships, not true battleships. FWIW, Conway's 1860-1905 calls them "armoured turret ships." Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is where we have a problem as we've never actually defined the first pre-dreadnoughts. The Chinese ships are pretty comparable to the USS Texas (1892), a second-class battleships of about the same size, although it was designed a few years later. And to the Brazilian battleship Riachuelo (1883), the ship that inspired the Texas and Maine. Texas is considered a pre-dreadnought, but Riachuelo isn't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

K, well I've removed them for now, and I suppose we ought to more clearly define the line that Sturm mentions. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there _is_ no hard-and-fast definition of pre-dreadnought. There is also no commonly accepted definition to separate ironclads from "true battleships": the term 'battleship' is first attested around 1800 and became a formal designation in the 1870s or 1880s. You can just as easily pick Gloire, Warrior, Devastation, Majestic, Royal Sovereign, or Dreadnought as your "first proper battleship" but is is an arbitrary distinction not a contemporary one and this needs to be appreciated. The Land (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While Texas is debatable USS Maine (ACR-1) has absolutely no claim to being a battleship, other than being designated as one by the US Navy. If major historians accept that, than so should we. It would be original research to come up with a definition of battleship on our own. Yoenit (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we've been trying since the project was in Tom's userspace, and haven't been able to clearly make that scope-based determination. I'm not sure this "consensus one-by-one" basis is going to cut it for much longer, especially as more editors become interested. As I recall, we had a rough formula for guns, armor, and displacement. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable following the classifications of naval references - I think the Conways series is a good tool to use for this. While we're on the subject, Conways refers to both Texas and Maine as 2nd class battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to Conways--does it explain how the classifications are made? For that matter, do any of the other good refs we use do that? bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not much specifically - in the foreword of the 1860-1905 volume Robert Gardiner states "For each national section, the classes run in chronological order within very basic type-divisions - armoured ships or capital ships...There are further subdivisions, but the problem of classification in this period is acute...and it has not been possible always to find a suitable subheading." So it seems they had to deal with the same problem we're dealing with right now. Interestingly, they refer to the Royal Sovereign class as the first true battleship - the earlier vessels they call either barbette or turret ships. The book describes the Royal Sovereigns as "the first class of what were to become known as pre-dreadnoughts" (on page 32). Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we'd all agree that we need to define a battleship based on its own merits, and not what its navy may have labelled it. I think we might have to consider doing the same when the references conflict, but I haven't seen much evidence of this hapenning. But the line between ironclad and battleship is fairly subjective, because it was a gradual shift. I know we might trend towards OR or SYNTH to make our own metric, but I think we might have to to be consistant. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "battleship" and "scope of Operation Majestic Titan". It is not Wikipedia's place to draw up a list of characteristics and decide whether or not a particular ship was or wasn't a battleship. That would very definitely be original research (though people do occasionally try it, and the situation is even worse with battlecruisers - gulp). OMT can obviously decide which articles it wants to include, but it doesn't get to define what is and isn't a battleship! The Land (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reject your definition of 'battleship' and substitute my own! ...*ahem* Anyway, I'm not really sure we can do anything but use a case-by-case definition; as has been mentioned, there's no hard and fast defintion of what is and isn't a PD, or worse BC, and going by official designations would cause a disgusting mess (some of the the old Japanese ACs were redesignated as BCs, then became ACs officially again, for instance!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just be glad this isn't Wikiproject Frigate. Now that really is a term that's defined differently every time it's used. :-) The Land (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point, Land. The scope is battleships, so if we can't define a ship as a BB or BC, then it can't be in our scope (except for the few in Phase V), and vice-versa. How can the two be distinct? bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you need a hard-and-fast selection for the project scope and history doesn't give you a hard-and-fast selection. Take HMS Shannon (1873). When she was launched she was designated a "second-class battleship" by the Royal Navy. Wikipedia can't say to the Royal Navy of the 1870s "no, sorry, you're wrong, it wasn't a battleship at all. Silly you." There is nevertheless a case for restricting OMT's coverage to battleships of certain periods. But that isn't because OMT has access to a truthful definition of "battleship" which the Royal Navy never had, it's because we're taking an administrative decision about the work we want to do. The Land (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be true if we were saying "well, she is a battleship but we won't include her in our scope", but we aren't. We aren't restricting coverage by periods, we are restricting coverage by classification. We've more than once said that just because an owning navy calls it a BB/BC doesn't actually make it one (i.e. the Kirovs, in fact, the only reason it's at the title of "battlecruiser is because most of the sources erroneously call it that, not because it actually is one). If the Shannon actually is a battleship, then we ought to include it, but if it's more an ironclad, then, no, we shouldn't, despite what the RN called it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How on Earth are we supposed to decide whether Shannon is a battleship or not? One fairly authoritative source, Oscar Parkes's "British Battleships" includes her. Other works will exclude her on the grounds she's too much like a cruiser. The objective fact of the matter is that when she was built the British Navy didn't see the difference between a battleship and a cruiser. Either way, she is very definitely an ironclad, and a great many ironclads were also battleships, at least until the 1890s when people started to use the term ironclad and battleship exclusively. I take the point about Kirov but there is a big difference between some commentators saying "hmm, this ship's a bit like a battlecruiser", and a situation where contemporaneous sources definitely call a ship a battleship. The Land (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, cases like Shannon we can exclude from OMT as she's an ironclad and probably best classed as an armored cruiser like her contemporaries of the Russian General-Admiral class, the very first armored cruisers. Which is exactly what Conway's and Silverstone classify her as.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, I never said that any sort of definition would be firm, or all-encompassing, but some sort of metric would preclude us from having to debate every single possible entry. How about we reaffirm the guns/armor/displacement idea, and add that there has to be a majority of the available sources categorizing it as such? bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Source on the use of USN battleships for bombardment purposes during World War II

Hi all, I'm planning to expand the Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II to hopefully get it up to GA or A class standard. As part of this I'd like to include a background section which discusses (briefly) the USN's previous use of its BBs for shore bombardment during the war. However, I don't have a source that provides a succinct summary of this to draw from - can anyone recommend one? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

gun articles

Still a bit burnt out after the Cup, I've been writing a number of gun stubs for Phase II. The German ones are mostly done and I've done about half of the Japanese ones. Feel free to start linking to them as you update or write your ship articles. I've also broken them out by nationality so people can add existing articles to the Phase II page. Just remember to add |Majestic-Titan=2 to each article's talk page so we can include them in our stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside...

...I was rather surprised to find a stub-ish article was created in late December for Norman Friedman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

TFAR

I've nominated HMS Indefatigable (1909) as the Featured Article for 24 February. There is another candidate for that date so please drop by Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to express your opinion as to which article is best suited for the main page on that day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just had a look at the dates and it seems that your article is the only one going on that day. So you get it by default :) Thurgate (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet cruiser hoax?

I saw a prod for Project 1157 cruiser pop up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military‎ as a possible hoax, and figured that you guys would know better than me if this is plausible or not. It's not referenced, and there seems to be confusion with intelligence ships. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about a supposed Soviet stealth cruiser in Google Books. Sounds like something made up in an internet forum. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Warships1 discussion board calls BS on the cruiser, and like Parsec said it seems to have been made up in an internet forum.Thurgate (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Annnnd say goodbye. Nice work, you three and Warships1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland working group

Hey all! As part of our effort to clean up the old working groups, we've been considering the best disposition for the Battle of Jutland group. Our original plan was to move it into the new project incubator, but a suggestion was made that OMT might be interested in absorbing this group instead.

I'd appreciate any comments on whether OMT would be interested in absorbing the group, and whether such an absorption would be feasible in practice, or whether participants here would prefer that the group be transitioned into the incubator instead. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as it only has three members currently, it doesn't look likely that it will garner many participants in the incubator. So in my eyes it would probably be better to just split the articles into the OMT's phrases. Thurgate (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the entirety of the working group's tasklist is already in our scope, so I'd say it's alread effectively been absorbed in everything but the page. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Easy enough, then. I've redirected the working group's remaining pages to the corresponding OMT ones; that should be the end of it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Hi all. In writing a paper on the evolution of naval warfare from 1870-1945, I've repeatedly come across the assertion that the British Royal Sovereign class battleships set the standard for battleship construction up til HMS Dreadnought. For example, Lawrence Sondhaus states that they "set the standard for battleship construction for the next seventeen years, until their general concept was rendered obsolete by the all big gun Dreadnought." (page 162, Naval Warfare 1815–1914). Theodore Roop and Stephen Roberts say "The Naval Defence Act [of 1889] was a watershed in naval technology as well as policy, for it marked the end of sample ships...Britain set a new standard of battleship design that endured until the development of the Dreadnought in 1904." (pages 206, 207, The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871–1904). The last time we discussed this, I pointed out that Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 states that the Royal Sovereigns were "the first class of what were to become known as pre-dreadnoughts." (page 32). One thing that is emphasized is the discarding of the emphasis on end-on fire that characterized many of the battleships built before the Royal Sovereigns and a return to broadside fighting - this is very similar to the shift from short-range to long-range engagements that occurred in the switch from pre-dreadnoughts to dreadnoughts.

Given the numerous discussions about whether a particular ship falls within our scope, and the hazy definition we currently have, I think it would be a good idea to simply use the Royal Sovereigns as a clear cut-off point. Any capital ship that predates them would be outside of our scope, as they are not included in what many naval historians call pre-dreadnoughts. This actually wouldn't trim much from the current list: a quick scan reveals we'd only lose the first three British classes, the first two Russian classes plus Dvenadsat Apostolov, the first two Italian classes, and the Spanish Pelayo. The obvious benefit is the clear cut-off. When we go to FTC, we lessen our vulnerability to claims that we cherry-picked articles. We also don't have to have the same discussions every few months someone finds an article they think should be included in our scope. Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you all know I've been arguing for a more clearly-defined scope on what is and is not a battleship. While my knowledge on 19th Century ships is pretty hazy, it seems like a reasonable cut-off to me. Of course, that opens the question: is there such a thing as a pre-pre-dreadnought battleship? bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the problem with the term "battleship", as it can (and is) applied to, say, the steam battleships that shelled Kinburn or the ironclad battleships that fought at Lissa (see Italian battleship Affondatore, for example). The 1860s-1880s was a period of great technical innovation and experimentation - the "battleships" of the era included broadside ironclads, turret and barbette ships, central battery ironclads, and turret rams. I would use the term "ironclad battleship" to differentiate them from the true pre-dreadnoughts as exemplified by the Royal Sovereigns and the unarmored steam battleships of the 1840s-1850s. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable cut of to me. Thurgate (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear in what I meant. I know that the term is bandied about (sometimes very liberally), but does that make them a true battleship by the three criteria we previously agreed on (guns armor displacement)? Or are they simply line-of-battle ships with some armor tacked on and a steam engine? bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of them are or are at least close to what we would consider battleships by the "guns, armor, displacement" criteria we have used in the past (indeed all of those we would cut meet those definitions). The problem is, many older ships which demonstrably aren't pre-dreadnoughts fit the requirements. The Colossus class, for instance, was armed with four 12-inch guns in two twin turrets, displaced over 9400 tons, and was heavily armored. The main reason I can see for not including the ships are that the turrets are mounted in a central barbette amidships rather than on the centerline. But why then do we include the American Texas and Maine, given that the former displaced 3000 tons less than Colossus, and carried half as many main guns (in an identical arrangement)?

The ships built before the 1889 Naval Defence Act were designed during a period of great experimentation; the eight Royal Sovereigns mark the period of more or less standard battleship construction in the world's major navies (sure, there are aberrations like Germany's Kaiser Friedrich III and Wittelsbach classes that abandoned the large-caliber gun in favor of medium-caliber quick-firers, but the vast majority followed the British pattern). I think that makes it the ideal cut-off point between pre-dreadnoughts and earlier experimental designs. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The design for Maine and & Texas predates the Royal Sovereigns, but they took forever to build. Based on your proposed criteria we should kick them out as well, which I don't have any problems with. Yoenit (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when the final nomination is made we will make a point to note that the ships not covered here will be covered in other, as-yet-to-be-started special projects that will pick up where this one leaves off. Our opponent's claims for cherry picking on such grounds should thus be kept at least partially at bay with this. I've already considered both aircraft carriers and the helo carry ships for a special project, as well as the heavy and light cruisers not covered by this special project. The only reason plans for these special projects have not been raised or discussed yet is due to my perception that a the moment this project should not be in open competition with other special projects of similar design and scope since its my belief that instituting other such special projects at the moment would divide our personnel and resources beyond a point where we could reasonably expect participation and project growth. As to the Royal Sovereigns: I'm a whisker suspicious of such claims by the Royal Navy since at this time they were the world's naval standard, but the sources agree then I think it may be reasonable to consider this a starting point as long as we agree that there will probably be one or two ships close enough in design concept and time of construction that the class(es) in question can be included in a good faith effort to get where we are going. In either case, whether they are covered here or not, its my announced intention to get to them sooner or later. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Royal Navy didn't make the claims about the Royal Sovereigns (at least as far as I've seen); John Campbell wrote the chapter on England in Conway's, and his work is pretty highly regarded. Roop's and Roberts' book is apparently more or less authoritative on the development of the French Navy, and I don't know that I've ever seen a negative review of Sondhaus. I think we'll have an easier time if we have sources backing up where we made the cut, rather than our own subjective decisions.

As for special projects on other types of warships, I have similar designs (such as this) - eventually I plan on doing more or less every major German warship and class (probably down to gunboats). Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with Tom about dividing our resources on different projects (and I think MILHIST agrees, since Operation Nautilus got tossed into the incubator). And to make sure I'm clear of your proposal, the pre-pre-dreadnoughts may or may not be defined as battleships, but we will limit them from our scope to have a clear inclusion line for both logistical and political purposes? I can support that. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be an arbitrary cutoff point, and it might as well be the Royal Sovereigns. Obviously you can find rationales to say it should be the Admiral class a few years earlier or the Majestics a few years later but you don't want indefinite creep on OMT. The Land (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like limiting our scope to the Royal Sovereigns; Beeler calls HMS Collingwood (1882) the first pre-dreadnought as most of the succeeding ships followed her format of a 12-inch gun barbette/turret fore and aft. What we might have to do is eliminate by name those ships that are too small or whatever to qualify. Off the top of my head those would probably include Riachuelo, Texas, Maine, and probably a bunch of designs from France and Italy in the 1880s. We'd have to give a brief reason why we were excluding them, but that would be fairly easy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with Beeler. Collingwood has more in common with earlier ships (such as HMS Dreadnought (1875)), particularly the low freeboard. The Royal Sovereigns were the first high-freeboard battleships built by the RN. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

MBK004

Anyone know what happened to MBK? He hasn't edited in a little over three months (nor on his alternate account), and I'm a tad concerned. Our OMT Bot didn't leave a notice of retirement or wikibreak that I've seen. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The word was that he had been busy with school, and that during the last semester his computer had finally and fully crashed, leaving him largely without net access. I admit that I have been worried as well, but I was waiting to see if maybe he would return or email someone this month. We've still got a little more of February left, but come March 1 I do intend to ping him again and see if everything's all right. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent MBK an email, he replied that the reason he has yet to return is RL issues. He said he expects to be back on here before the end of the month. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks for checking into that. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks also from me Tom Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A few useful photos..

Just noticed that there are some freely-licensed photos of British battleships which haven't (yet) been moved over to Commons & included in articles..... just a thought :-D The Land (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Backlog drive

If you hadn't noticed the MILHIST March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I recommend you take a closer look. We have just over 300 stub- and start-class articles in Phase I (and even more for the entire project). I know that the glory is in the GA, A, and FA improvement processes, and we've done very well there thus far, but I tend to see far less updates on my watchlist to the metric in regards to moving up to B-class. The only article needing expert attention in our scope is Naval artillery, and that's a core article for Phase II. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given naval artillery some "expert attention", but haven't given it much time - it is still very incomplete and references are entirely absent. Think it's still rather better than what was there before though. The Land (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is another article that could use some help: Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament. I know there are more treaties than the stub lists, but can't bloody remember than at the moment. On top of that, the implications of the arms reductions weighed heavily on battleship design and construction, which could be fleshed out much more. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A question on Tirpitz

I just finished the rewrite of German battleship Tirpitz, and had a question I wanted to run by you guys. In trying to balance two many levels of subheaders with the infamous "wall-o-text", I formatted the section on British attacks on the ship with semi-colon headers. It was an experiment I've never used before. My question is, is this a workable solution? Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it works perfectly. Having that many subheaders in the TOC when each section is only a couple of paragraphs is a bit excessive, and I generally avoid trying to go past level three headers anyway. You could probably get away without using them at all if you word it enough that the operation names pop out; but the current solution works just fine. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)