Talk:French battleship Courbet (1911)
Latest comment: 7 months ago by 151.29.137.229 in topic start of WW I
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French battleship Courbet (1911) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | French battleship Courbet (1911) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | French battleship Courbet (1911) is part of the Battleships of France series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Neger manned torpedos? edit
Never seen them described that way and they are not what is normaly meant by Manned torpedo. Technicaly they are extemely low freeboard torpedo boats but there has to be a better description.
- Considering that they were built by modifying a torpedo to carry another torpedo, I'm comfortable calling them a manned torpedo. I really don't care that they were incapable of submerging.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- the incapable of submerging bit is the reason I am not suggesting we call them a mini-sub. However the various sources about them never call them a manned torpedo so you are using a highly non standard descirption.©Geni 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation bot denied access edit
I've disabled citation bot until I find out why publisher data is being removed from one journal citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Linking edit
Does anybody else see a problem with The ships were powered by two license-built Parsons steam turbine sets, each driving two propeller shafts. regarding WP:SEAOFBLUE? The guideline recommends avoiding this type of thing, and MoS compliance is a FA criterion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Parsons being the designer of the steam turbines, how is this any different than "General electric refrigerator"? Both of which would have their own link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Use "licensed built steam turbines from Parsons" to make it moot? (Hohum @) 12:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SEAOFBLUE states "[w]hen possible", and makes three suggestions for avoiding "placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link", as is done with 'Parsons steam turbine'. So, narrowly, and IMO, it is in compliance with the MoS. However, if a formulation which was not unduly clumsy and which avoided the conjunction were offered then the emphasis, IMO, would be on the editor preferring 'Parsons steam turbine' to explain why it should be retained. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding of SEAOFBLUE is that it has suggested avoiding three links in sequence - two links should be fine. I don't think Hohum's suggestion works, as (at least to me), it implies that Parsons built the turbines for Courbet. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know how one would reach that understanding as it isn't what the guideline says. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding of SEAOFBLUE is that it has suggested avoiding three links in sequence - two links should be fine. I don't think Hohum's suggestion works, as (at least to me), it implies that Parsons built the turbines for Courbet. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SEAOFBLUE states "[w]hen possible", and makes three suggestions for avoiding "placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link", as is done with 'Parsons steam turbine'. So, narrowly, and IMO, it is in compliance with the MoS. However, if a formulation which was not unduly clumsy and which avoided the conjunction were offered then the emphasis, IMO, would be on the editor preferring 'Parsons steam turbine' to explain why it should be retained. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
start of WW I edit
The article WW I of WIKIPEDIA says that Germany declared war to France on 3 august, while this article states that France declared war to Germany on 2 august. pietro151.29.185.59 (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I agree with pietro. 151.29.137.229 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)