Welcome! edit
Hello, Vamsae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Bismarck's design speed edit
Hello, Vamsae!
Thanks for the good work that you have been doing on naval articles. If you are not already a member, have you considered joining the Maritime warfare task force?
I would like to comment on your edit to the speed quoted for the Bismarck class in the Fast battleship article. As stated in the preamble to that section, all the speeds quoted are design speeds, not trial or service speeds, and all are taken from a common source (Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships). To maintain consistency, I have therefore restored the original figure. Also, Wikipedia editors are not encouraged to quote one article as a source for another.
As far as I know, there is no consensus within Wikipedia (or the world at large) as to how fast Bismarck and Tirpitz actually were in service (for example, the German battleship Bismarck article quotes a different speed from the Bismarck class battleship article). It seems very likely to me that she could exceed her design speed in an emergency, and possibly for an extended period (according to Norman Friedman, German engineers allowed unusually large overload margins in their steam turbine installations). However, the Fast battleship article is about a design concept, rather than a service history, so it seems to me that design speed is the most appropriate basis for comparison.
I am happy to discuss this issue either here (I have added this page to my watchlist) or in the article's talk page.
Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)