Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive 8

• Archive %(counter)d
• [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan/Archive |]]

List of battlecruisers of Russia

An editor new to OMT has been greatly expanding the section on the Kirov-class battlecruisers in the List of battlecruisers of Russia, so much so that I think they're dominating the list as there's much more information in that section than in any of the others. Other problems are that he's not matching the citations as used in the rest of the list, heavy use of web references, and a number of minor MOS violations. I've reverted his changes and posted an explanation on the talk page, but I invite all interested editors to weigh in on the subject there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

30 minutes of special Iowa tour.

Exploring OFF LIMIT Areas WW2 Battleship USS Iowa Brad (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on early Brit dreadnought class articles

I've started working up St Vincent-class battleship and would like some advice on how to handle summarizing the activities of the early British dreadnoughts. The Jellicoe book more than adequately covers the activities of the Grand Fleet before Jutland so I can easily fill out that time on the individual ship articles, but summarizing all that can easily be done in a single sentence. Similarly, they didn't actually do much during Jutland so there's not much that can be added, even including a summary of the Action of 19 August. And they did even less than that once Beatty took command as his orders were to conserve his ships and not expose them to submarines and mines. While I expected that the technical stuff would be the majority of the class article, I didn't expect this big of a disparity. So what's a fellow to do? This is going to be a problem for all of the early dreadnought class articles up until about the Iron Dukes as most of them didn't do much of interest. Even Warrender's ships (2nd BS?) are only good for a couple of extra sentences since they never actually engaged the Germans. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to restructure how the section is divided. Instead of a Jutland sub-section, you might just have one for the war, and just do Jutland in one paragraph. Maybe write up the section and we can take a look to see how it can best be formatted. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: if you're looking for photos, the ones the NHHC has are available - for instance this one of Vanguard. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the NHHC photos. See how it reads now, as all I've got left to do is add a photo or two. Do I have too much detail, too little, or both (hopefully in different sections)? Is the organization reasonable, should I add a post-war header, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally looking good now. Coverage looks appropriate to the article - not too little not too much. I would prefer to have a Jutland section personally, otherwise "subsequent activity" looks odd in the hierarchy on its own. Also I would argue for *not* abbreviating Battle Squadron (looks very weird to my eyes). Finally I wouldn't use the term "in reserve" for the Grand Fleet during the War. It's not exactly wrong (and would be 100% correct on land) but with ships "in reserve" is usually a ship with a skeleton crew that can be readied for war in weeks/months... The Land (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the Jutland sub-section is a necessity, what with the map and all. I understand your point about reserve not being common terminology for naval units, but I can't think of a better way to describe the Grand Fleet's late-war role. Do you have any suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for redoing that whole bit; it reads much better, The Land. I've already used it in the Bellerophon-class article and plan to do for the rest of the British dreadnought class articles. BTW, feel free to drop by on any of the current ACRs or FACs and offer an opinion, even if you don't feel like doing a full review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition of HMS Incomparable

Is there any specific reason HMS Incomparable isn't listed here? It was a proposal for a large british battlecruiser. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It was never a serious proposal - that's why the article is in Phase V. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured list review notification

There is a Featured List review currently underway here for List of sunken battleships. –Vami_IV✠ 08:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding Steam/Ironclad Battleships

I was wondering if they should be added. Because there are many new articles that would be added, and many are poorly developed, it would make sense to add it as a seperate phase, if there is a decision to do it at all. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We made a decision to cover only modern battleships for this project - that means just the dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts, and Washington-era ships. Sturm and I have nevertheless been working on a lot of the older ships anyway (for instance the Ottoman ironclads I've been doing lately that you've reviewed a few of). Sturm has tables for most of the ironclads in a sub-page of his sandbox somewhere. 00:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Can this be reconsidered please? Given that the steam ironclad battleships are direct predecessors of the pre-dreadnought battleships, only a couple decades older, and were capital ships of smaller navies, it would be useful to include this type of battleship in the scope if this project; possibly as a "Phase VI". Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Coastal battleships

Are the coastal battleships currently in scope of this project? Most nations that couldn't afford pre-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts included coastal battleships in their navies. If not in scope, can they please be added; possibly as a "Phase VI" or "VII"? Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No, they're not in scope. If there was interest, they'd belong to their own project (since this one covers only the sea-going battleships and battlecruisers of basically the 1890s-1940s), but seeing as I'm just about the last active participant here now that Sturmvogel has gone AWOL, there probably isn't a point to creating one modeled on OMT. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if would be worth the huge effort of creating a dedicated competing project with this level if dedication and quality. What's the rationale of keeping this type of ship out of scope? Why not adding them in a separate phase? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, it's probably not worth the effort of adding them here. The project is largely moribund at this point, since the editors doing the heavy lifting in terms of article writing have either stopped editing altogether or gone on to other things. I'm the only one left, and apart from the German ships I've already done, I don't foresee being all that interested in them. I don't have access to the sources needed to do a decent job of the Scandinavian ships, for instance. And as for scope, one has to draw the line somewhere. Coastal defense ships aren't battleships any more than armored cruisers are battlecruisers (and in cases like Blücher and Rurik, the line is far blurrier). Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cites without refs in Yamato-class battleship article

Hey guys, there are a handful of citations purporting to come from a work by H.P. Willmott in the Yamato-class battleship article, but there is no Willmott reference listed in the bibliography. The page numbers definitely do not correspond to Willmott's book The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action, so I am not sure where they are coming from exactly. You folks might be more familiar with the subject and so can fix the attributions here rather than myself just deleting the improper citations while leaving statements of fact un-sourced. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've sent an off-wiki message to Climie.ca. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

On his advice, I've added The Second World War in the Far East. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Formidable class

So I was looking at the Formidable class last night, and both Burt and Conway's treat the class as consisting of just the first three ships - Bulwark and the rest are their own class. Apparently Gibbons treats them as one class divided into three sub-classes, but he might be the minority opinion. H.P. Wilmott refers to them as Burt does, though he calls it the London class, not the Bulwark class (so does the 1911 Britannica). Preston refers to them as the "Formidable/London/Queen classes". Pears also splits them up (into Formidable, London, and Queen classes). Sturm, you have Parkes, don't you? How does he describe them? Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Parkes breaks them into 3 Formidables and 5 Londons, apparently believing that the minor armament changes in Queen and Prince of Wales weren't enough to constitute even a sub-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So it certainly seems like they should be divided - it seems that Burt is in the minority referring to them as the Bulwark class, so should we opt for 3 Formidables and 5 Londons? Parsecboy (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that that's reasonable, and certainly supportable if somebody were to challenged the decision. Probably ought to have a note in the class articles, though, explaining the various ways that people classified these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll plan on that - part of the reason I put the links here was to preserve them for future use. I'll do the ship articles before I start hacking at the class article, so it'll be a while before anything happens (assuming no one else comments here in the meantime). Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective: Stars and Stripes (Battleships of the United States Navy

Last night, I began work on List of battleships of the United States Navy and spent a couple hours on my overhaul of the list, which was reverted. In the notice of that reversion on the talk page, it was suggested that I post notices on pertinent WikiProjects to review my edit. Please follow this link to that talk page to discuss and review my work, its the second-most recent edit as of the writing of this notice. –Vami_IV✠ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm back!

It's good to be back everyone...a long 6-year hiatus has done me well.

Now, let's work to finish what we all started so many years ago.--White Shadows ^{One eye watching you} 00:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

HMS Incomparable

I'd almost forgotten this fantasy article about Fisher's pie-in-the-sky concept battlecruiser, but an editor just tried to add it to the FA List of British Battlecruisers. All of its refs refer to comparable designs and nothing to Fisher's concept. Since this never even was reviewed by a competent naval architect it has less substance than Hitler's H-class battleships or the Japanese A-150s. I think it's time to put this up for AfD. What say y'all?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tough call. The article does indeed have questionable sources, but the image does imply at least some consideration given to the vessel. I'd support an afd unless there was a better place to merge and/or redirect it. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

About the only thing I can find that's of decent quality is this passage in Sumida - I don't know that you can make an article out of a couple of paragraphs. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I did, once. Its a featured article, too :) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The image appears to be from Fisher's book, so I don't think that it counts for much, if anything. At least Illinois was seriously contemplated, Tom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Right - there was a fair bit of steel assembled for Illinois - not so much for Incomparable. Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Phase III

Phase I of OMT seems to be running out of steam, with there now being good coverage of most classes of battleships. Phase II on naval armaments strikes me as being a bit unexciting. Are other editors interested in getting stuck into Phase III on battles and other historical highlights involving battleships? Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

List of requirements

Does anyone know where I can find a lost of the requirements for each article class? A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:MH/A? A class
• WP:MH/B B class
• WP:GACR GA class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: thank you!!! A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. You should also think about using articles that are already assessed at the level you want to reach as examples.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Heinrich Ehrler and Tirpitz

Given Heinrich Ehrler's role in the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz, does he qualify for Phase IV? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of an iffy connection, IMO. I'd always envisioned Phase IV for the people who captained or led battleships if otherwise notable. Others might think differently, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's been my understanding as well, but I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 anniversary work

Would any of you be interested in expanding USS Hornet (CV-12) before the Apollo 11 anniversary in July of next year? I think if it is at least GA, that would be good for the small influx of traffic it will likely see. Of course, if someone makes the effort to bring it above that, all the better for the readers. No worries either way, if someone was looking for a specific ship to work on, it would be great to pick this one up! Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless if anyone takes this on, I will commit to expanding Tomahawk (missile) and Harpoon (missile) to GA-class. I may be able to help with the British 21-inch torpedo article as well, as it uses propellants I am familiar with. Kees08 (Talk) 06:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Are there other missiles missing from Phase II? I can start recruiting others to edit those articles, although I likely will not commit time until after my current project is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 18:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about upgrading the Hornet article. I don't know about getting it all the way to FA, but I ought to be able to upgrade it to GA. As for missile articles, I think that only the Iowas were equipped with any missiles at all, although I think that one of the Idaho's was converted into a missile testing ship for the early T-series AA missiles. Anything that can be done to improve the torpedo articles will be greatly appreciated, although sourcing may be a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I can lend a hand with Hornet too - at very least, I can rewrite the DANFS text. As for the Idaho converted into a missile test ship, that'd be USS Mississippi (BB-41) - she carried a RIM-2 Terrier launcher and later tested the AUM-N-2 Petrel (already a GA). On torpedoes, I'd think Friedman's and Campbell's books on the naval weapons of the world wars should give us enough of a core to put together GAs. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries if you all do not find the time to work on Hornet; hope it does not look like I am guilting you! I will work on expanding the list of missiles/torpedos as necessary, and begin the expansion of the articles. Is the goal to make Phase II a featured topic as well? Kees08 (Talk) 21:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think we can push most of the weapon articles past GA and even getting all of them up GA may be impossible. I mean every different torpedo ideally should its own article, but most of the time all we can get are speed/range tables and warhead sizes from the usual suspects like those mentioned by Parseboy. But we can probably settle for "class" articles covering all the British 14-inch torpedoes, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Massive congratulations

Hi, I would just like to express my huge congratulation to all the editors to this project, you are not too far off from completing part 1 of this project which once done at the rate you are going in about 6 months, one big featured topic of over 500 articles!!!!! I have been keeping an eye on this project over the years and am amazed by the vast progress that's been made on what is a very important historical topic. What's the plan after this has been completed? 02blythed (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, kindly! There are a couple of other phases covering the armament and battles of the battleships and then the biographies of their notable leaders. So, only another decade or two's work!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering I started working on the German battleships in 2007, that estimate is not far off! Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Your all most welcome. All of you that have done this work have created by far the greatest resource on military ships anywhere in the world, and all as volunteers. This is by far the biggest achievement on Wikipedia. You should all be very proud of yourself. Yea I remember myself in 2007 when I first discovered Wikipedia and this project had been created not too long after. As you say it has been a decades work in the making. I have seen the other phases but they aren't as significant in terms of work required like this one. 02blythed (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ship models in the collection of the Hamburg Maritime Museum

Hi! I am reaching out on behalf of de:WP:Ahoi, a German-language Wikiproject looking into contemporary seafaring. We're in the (very) early stages of discussing a partnership with the Internationales Maritimes Museum Hamburg, which holds some 50,000 ship models of various sizes, many of them battleships. Speaking to The Land yesterday, I wanted to ask whether this is something you'd be interested in. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd certainly think so - many of the articles on more obscure vessels (and some not so obscure) are poorly illustrated and could make use of good photos of models. I'd especially think photos that show details of the models (for example, close-up shots of gun batteries, conning towers, etc.) would be useful. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This would be excellent. The Internationales Maritimes Museum Hamburg's collection of models is remarkable - it's a great museum. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

DANFS fun

So I've started hacking away at USS California (BB-44), and the DANFS entry is...um...interesting:

The actions of the ship’s company while on liberty and leave provide a glimpse of the personal lives of sailors during this period. California reported a rate of 137 per 1,000 cases of sexually transmitted diseases in 1927 and 118 per 1,000 in 1928. The highest incidence of one of the diseases studied -- gonorrhea -- per day resulted from liberty in San Francisco, followed (in order) by Seattle, Wash.; Sydney, Australia; Los Angeles, Calif.; and Auckland, New Zealand. The medical officer surmised that the availability of “bootleg liquor” and women contributed to a dangerous combination in that regard, and that well-meaning local authorities sometimes inadvertently exacerbated the problem by allowing men in uniform to travel on street cars in San Francisco or on all forms of public transportation in Sydney for free. Los Angeles figured less prominently because local officials made a “considerable effort” to limit the “sources of infection” and the women also plied their trade some distance from the ship’s berths.

Somehow I don't see that making its way into the article... Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Man, that was a slog - so much of that particular DANFS entry was "um, no, this whole paragraph isn't going in"...and the article still more than doubled in size. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Not surprised, DANFS entries ought to be used as the poster children for biased writing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Usually they aren't this bad - they frequently have, shall we say, interesting descriptions of events (look at the ones for ships involved in the Caribbean operations in the early 20th century, and I can't imagine what some of the Vietnam-related entries have to say), but the sheer level of "who cares" detail in this one was astounding. There were not one but two fairly detailed descriptions of the equator crossing hazing, for crying out loud. Parsecboy (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I bet that the Navy Dept. Library had copies of the ship's cruise books for those crossings and, in the spirit of no detail too trivial, the unknown compiler just copied them over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well at least they went for the high score :) And yes, they usually aren't this bad, so it does stand to reason that we still need to keep an eye on DANFS-Wikipedia cooperation. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No doubt, Sturm - the hard copy I have from the mid-70s is decidedly more brief. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of being contrary, while I agree that that DANFS entry is unusually over-sized and turgid, I think that a summary of what the crew got up to would actually be useful in the article. It's a good idea to describe the experiences of ships' crews, with the main barrier to doing so being the traditional focus in this genre of military history being on the physical ships (what they comprised and where they went) and the perspectives of senior officers. A common flaw of our articles on battleships is there isn't much coverage of the crew. So, why not include this? Australian military history works tend to have a much stronger focus on what personnel experienced and got up to than is the case in other countries, which allows for a more rounded coverage of topics. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I could see making a reference to the line crossing ceremonies, but what exactly would you say about the sailors' propensity to catch the clap that would be encyclopedic? A lot of the stuff I elided would be perfectly fine in something like Stillwell's monster 450-page tome Battleship Missouri: An Illustrated History, but I don't think it really belongs in an encyclopedia article. I wouldn't use With the Old Breed to write the articles on the battles of Peleliu or Okinawa, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

HMS Malaya improvements

I want to know where we can improve this article for B-class or GA. I plan to work on it, prepare it for GA. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You can do a simple copy-edit of the article at any time. Truly preparing it for GA will require a lot of work which is probably why none of us have gotten around to it yet. Take a look at her sister ship HMS Barham (04) if you want an idea of the amount of work required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, there isn't a lot of old material there to be reworked - doing most of the Revenges was a slog in that regard.

The sources required to write a proper article are numerous. Burt is mandatory to get some of the barebones information on the interwar years and modifications to the ship. You'll need Campbell to cover Jutland, Jellicoe's memoirs can fill in some gaps in the ship's other operations in 1916, but won't be good for much post 1916. Smith's The Great Ships will cover WWII activities, and you'll likely be able to find details on the ship's activities in the 1920s in Halpern's book on the Mediterranean Fleet. There are of course others included in the reference list on the page that could prove useful as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

Do any of you have this source? It supports a statement in Soviet ship Kosmonavt Yuriy Gagarin, which says it was built in 1971. Would any of you be able to find the page number for me, and verify it was named after Gagarin initially and not later renamed? I am working on the Yuri Gagarin article. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Norman Polmar, Guide to the Soviet Navy, Fourth Edition (1986), United States Naval Institute, Annapolis Maryland, ISBN 0-87021-240-0

I have the third edition, ISBN 0-87021-239-7, p. 309 and it says nothing about being named something else before its current name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks, thank you I included that reference in both articles. Kees08 (Talk) 21:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mississippi class

So it occurs to me that there isn't a whole lot of merit to have separate articles for their American and Greek careers - anybody opposed to merging them? Arguably the articles should be under their Greek names, since they were Greek for more than twice as long as they were American, and they actually saw (albeit limited) wartime service under the Greek flag. Anybody have opinions on this? Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's consolidate them under the Greek name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the many situations that redirects will take care of. RobDuch (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll take care of it tomorrow barring any objections. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mississippi has been merged/redirected into Greek battleship Kilkis, which is, I think, much better for it. Idaho/Lemnos will be up next. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And now Idaho has been merged as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Source problems in HMS Royal Oak (08)

While working on the Revenge-class battleship article, I was going to work in a mention of the "Royal Oak mutiny", and I noticed some problems with the referencing there that were introduced here - there might well be other problems that I haven't noticed, so we might want to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Last time I looked at it, which admittedly was a few years ago, it was in horrible shape and really not deserving of its FA star. Since I'm always looking for gew-gaws, according to that fellow five(?) years ago or so, I figured that we should run it through a formal FAR rather than just rewrite it ourselves. Who knows, maybe we can get somebody else to help out with the prose and such? Shouldn't be that much work even if we don't get any help as there's no significant WW2 activity to cover.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a 2007 promotion, and it shows. I dunno about a formal FAR - what happens if we start one and nobody shows up to work on it? The trouble, as usual, is the interwar section, since we can just the post-Jutland stuff from other articles, and the sinking isn't exactly short of sources to use. Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not counting on anyone but us to work on it. As for interwar material, why would she be any different than her sisters? With Halpern's books on the Med Fleet we've got quite a bit of the R's careers covered, plus Royal Oak spent several years being modernized in the '30s, so we're good there as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

New article

Big Seven (battleships) was just created by a new editor - anybody ever heard of this nickname? This looks to be World of Warships nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen it used, and it seems unlikely. There were lots of differences between the designs of these battleships. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That was my take on it as well. And a google books search turned up nothing, but I figured I’d ask in the event that I somehow missed the term in all the years I’ve been writing these articles ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in draft space now. Definitely looks like something World of Warships made up, though it's also found in a 2015 or earlier anime and was a thread last year on quora.com. Both of these look like WWS fancruft overflow. Of course, this reminds me of Star Blazers. I've heard of several battleship groupings, but never an international one (well, dreadnoughts and pre-dreads, but those are more ship types). RobDuch (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Forces de haute mer

I've just created an article on this Vichyite organization; it might be useful for anyone working on Vichy French ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anyone doing that - thanks for the heads up ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD suggestion

Is List of battleships by country necessary? If List of battleships ends up looking like List of battlecruisers, it would be redundant. I can AfD List of battleships by country if you agree (or you can, does not matter to me). Kees08 (Talk) 17:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point - yes, the battleships list will be identical in format to the battlecruiser one, so I'd say the "by country" list will be entirely redundant (if it isn't already - it's basically a list consisting of a nav template). I say go ahead and AfD it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

List of battleship classes

Why do we have this list? The equivalent battlecruiser list redirects to List of battlecruisers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it should be redirected as redundant. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So what's the next step? Do we need to announce that we going to wipe it clean and turn it into a redirect?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD, I say ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Okey-dokey!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

New redirects

I've set up redirects for Krupp non-cemented armor and non-cemented armor (in both spellings) that link to Krupp armour#Homogeneous Krupp-type armour. I trust that they'll come in handy at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Progress

We're 26 start-, C- and B-class articles (excluding lists) away from qualifying for a GT.

• 3 Core
• 6 US
• 10 Brit (excluding Revenge class which I just nominated for GA)
• 1 Russian
• 6 French

I think it was CPA-5's comments not too long ago that really sparked Parsec and I into putting more effort into getting everything up to GA and focusing on pushing the max possible number of articles through ACR and FAC. With a lot of luck and some serious translation work, we should be able to get all of these through GAN by about year's end. And we'll be about 18 articles closer to getting half our articles through FAC or FL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem is going to be the lists - we have, what, 11 of those to try to get through FLC in the next 6 months? And the only one in decent shape is the Japanese one (I know, I know, I need to get to that - after I finish the Dunkerque class article today, I promise!) I'll probably at least get started on the French list next - I generally prefer to wait until all of the ships and classes are done, as it's easier to pull things from them for the list, but we need to get more lists in the pipeline if we're going to finish in this decade, given how slow FLC is ;)

Which reminds me - I have FAC and FLC slots I need to fill... Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I was excluding them. But we should have all of them done by the time we've reached our required number of FAs in two years or so. We ought to be able to use the national lists as the basis for the comprehensive lists, so I think that they're just going to be tedious to put together. At least I hope so, anyways. I should finish the Russian list this month sometime at any rate. I agree with your strategy as it's easiest to use the class article's lede as the basis for that class's entry in the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at the progress bar, and a minor problem occurs to me. The tracker we have now combines the battleships and battlecruisers, but the topics we'll end up with aren't combined. Should we redo the bars for the separate BB and BC topics? Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh, hadn't though it that way, 'cause we just lump them together. The tracker per se is not updating, but we should probably split things anyway since we need to get the BBs up to speed all by themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think CPA has been keeping track of the bar lately. But we ought to split them so we get a more accurate representation of where we stand.

On an unrelated note, I think the lead for the Japanese list is too long - I worked up a trimmed down version here - it's just something I threw together by cutting down the current lead, let me know what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I do tend to cram a lot of details into my articles. Should we tag the Eight-eight fleet and Six-six fleet articles for OMT? They do muchly concern capital ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think so - stick 'em in Phase III, I think?

Feel free to do whatever you want with that draft - use it or not, or change it as you like - it was just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean the Japanese list?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, the figures are now: 22 start-, C- and B-class articles left to do.

• 2 Core
• 6 US
• 10 Brit
• 4 French

There are 9 lists left to do (not counting the Japanese and French lists, as the work on writing those is done and they just need to pass through the review processes). I'm planning on tackling three of the four remaining French vessels soon, probably after an American palate cleanser or two. And it occurs to me that the British pre-dreadnought half is done apart from Lord Nelson-class battleship. Cough cough. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why am I imagining Anne Elk-type coughs in my direction? Just because you knocked out two articles to my one this month?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea - it must be the tell-tale heart. Only one of us is retired ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A month later, and we're down to:

• 2 core
• 5 American
• 9 British
• 4 French.

Are we feeling motivated yet? Parsecboy (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think you guys are. First, there was a little typo at the number of the French ships last time. It wasn't 4 but 5. Plus you guys are/were working on the two biggest and most annoying articles of the OMT. You also were working on the lists last month so but we're working slowly because of the lists and the most annoying articles. After the most annoying articles, I think the other ones are chill and okay to work with. The only one annoying articles to left are the New Mexico-class battleship and HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913) all of those articles eat so much work and progress before they're finished. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • True, Richelieu took more than 2 weeks to overhaul - but actually, the New Mexico class article won't be too difficult. At least in my experience, it's much easier to write an article from scratch than it is to overhaul an existing one. Tennessee-class battleship took me all of 2 days to write, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• If you say so. Well, you guys took 34 articles in 2019 to GA, which is insane a lot. We have only 20 non-list articles to go. I do not think we could make all the lists to A-class before 2020, but we'd be close if we are all working on it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Another month has passed and we now still have to do:

• 2 core
• 5 US
• 9 British
• 1 French (without Alsace-class)
• 4 Lists.

These all need to get at least GA-class (or AL-class) by 2020 (well I assume that was our deadline). Now excuse me I've some homework to do before the drive and the Election will take place. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Project members

In case anyone noticed, I just removed a bunch of participants who are no longer active (i.e., no edits in the last year or so). I don't figure they need to clutter up the list. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Battleships? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Article counts

I automated the progression bar based on categories, but I only get 498 good article and higher, and the number was 500 before. Did I miss a category or something? Seems like AL-Class doesn't exist and it is instead included in A-Class, so I don't think its that. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is Talk:List of battleships of Spain - it's rated as GA since it's apparently too short of a list to count at WP:FL, but because the Milhist template can't accept an assessment of GA with "list=yes" set, it downgrades it to B, which is what throws off the count. That's why we have to do the manual count, since an automated one will never be correct. List of battleships of Greece is in the same boat, but since it's A-class, it doesn't get put in the wrong category. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Outside of fixing the issues with the article assessment/classifications themselves (looking at the talk page of one, seems like that was not desired), we could add a + 2 into the count and link to this section of the talk page in a hidden comment. I am not the one that updates the counts though, if it is something you all would rather leave as-is that is okay. Seems like it could be worked around easily enough if that is desired. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing Talk:Battleship Island (Alaska)

I am considering the MILHIST template on Talk:Battleship Island (Alaska), and other than the name, I do not see any connection with a Battleship for this article. I am considering removing it, but perhaps there is a different alternitive. Reply right here.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be tagged for MilHist, so go ahead and remove it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It was from here. PMG (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

List of battleships of the United States

So with the American topic quickly reaching completion, I was looking at the list and am wondering what to do with USS Texas (1892) - we don't have a List of ironclad warships of the United States to send it to, and there's also the question of what sources call the ship - I doubt "ironclad" is the most common. Should we keep it in the list and be prepared to answer the inevitable question at FTC? Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I really think that, since Texas was officially a "second-class battleship" for part of her career, and is listed as such by DANFS, it belongs on the battleship list. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, we could build that list pretty easily using all the ACW ironclads, the Amphitrite-class monitors, etc., from the 1870s, plus Maine and Texas. Texas is really the last gasp of the "iconclad battleships" and was obsolete before she was completed as she wasn't a pre-dreadnought by any definition. We've excluded several Russian ships from the project for similar considerations and will have a similar disparity between the title of the list and its scope. Fortunately for me, there are enough Russian ironclad warships for their own list.

Most authors don't classify the 1870's-1880's ironclads separately from anything else as they're focused on more narrow typology with barbette, turret and central-battery ships, all of which reach back to the early days of ironclads. Changing the names of the lists to exclude these sorts of ships would make them long and awkward so I think that we're gonna have to explain their exclusion if that's what we decide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the cut-off point is clear, and in the case of the British has been established via "List of pre-dreadnought battleships", I'm OK with putting Texas and Maine in an "ironclads" list. They resemble some of the European transitional designs of the 1870s–1880s. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Any familiarity with this book?

A new (and since-blocked) account went around adding this book to a bunch of articles in the project - does anyone know if it's worth including, either in further reading sections or as a direct source? The idea of a chapter on Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII is intriguing, but I don't know if the book is actually any good or not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the book, but I do know the author. Taylor wrote a very good history of Hood with lots of interesting stuff from interviews as well as technical data. Might be worth taking a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there are a couple of copies in my state - will have to see if I can get it through ILL. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - it came in yesterday and it looks like it'll be quite useful, particularly for some of the Scandinavian coastal defense ships. It has chapters on Iena and Slava that you may find useful (along with Hood and Nagato) - I can send you scans if you'd like. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've got Iena and Slava scanned already - haven't gotten all the way through as of yet, but I'll send those over. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another effort to change she to it

There's another effort to change she to it for ship articles underway. Discussion at WT:MOS if you haven't already offered your opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Progress update

If anyone is curious, here's where we are now:

• 2 core
• 3 US (not counting Kearsarge-class battleship, which is pending its GA review)
• 9 British
• 1 French
• 6 lists.

Unfortunately, those 9 British articles are going to require quite a bit of heavy lifting, and the 3 Americans won't be particularly fun either. I'm planning on doing the Americans eventually, and have started fiddling with the British pre-dreadnought list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see these old ships all receive a well covert articles. Hopefully you guys will finish this project one day.Pindanl (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

About a month later, and here we are:

• 2 core
• 8 British
• 1 French
• 6 lists.

This tally doesn't include 2 American and 1 British articles waiting on their GA reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm happy to hear this project made a lot of progress this year alone, even though it hasn't ended yet. I have been counting from 1 January until now and we made 41 articles to GA, that's insane a lot. On 7 June 2020 the Phase I's project page will reach its 10th anniversary and it might be an awesome idea to make every article and list into at least a GA (or AL) before its 10th anniversary. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm in the process of updating the British pre-dreadnought list, and will probably tackle the American list after that, since both GTs are complete apart from the lists. I might have them both done by the end of the year, but we'll see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• And the Yanks are all now GAs. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Don't remind me - now I have to tackle another list! Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review

In case this went unnoticed I thought I would post here, there is a pre-Featured Article Review for Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. The specific points that should be addressed are at the talk page I linked. Take a look if you have time, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

10th Anniversary of Phase I

There's only one week left to reach the 10th anniversary of Phase I. On the 7th it's the anniversary and after almost a whole decade working only:

• 2 core
• 8 British
• 1 French

so in total, only 11 articles are bellow GA which is great progress and many things have changed and evolved in those 10 years. Unless someone wants to reach that sweet goal of every article (with exaption of the lists) being GA then it's now the time to work on those 11 articles. ;) But seriously, great job for still being active and keeping this project alive for a decade. I know this project almost hasn't any bellow-GA articles so I don't mind if someone wants to create another phase for other types like cruisers, avisos, battlecruisers and many more. Hopefully you guys would still stick here in 2030. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A favor

König-class battleship is set to run on the main page in a week, and given its age (and the fact that a bunch of sources have been published since it passed FAC more than a decade ago), I figured it needed a complete overhaul. I don't think we have time to do a WP:GOCE request, so I was hoping that some of the stalwarts here could give it a once-over to find my mistakes ;) Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, just say whenever it's ready to be scrutinized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha, that was the post saying it was ready ;) And I didn't see this until after it ran. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• How ironic, it needs an overhaul but it was yesterday a TFA. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it needed an overhaul, which it got. But if you still want to give it a once-over, I won't complain ;)
• Best of all, Tirpitz just got scheduled for 1 April, so now I have to dust that one off too - I've already removed a few ".0"s, but eyes there would be appreciated too. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Don't try to fool us with your jokes!!! ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SMS Derfflinger is another old FAC that is set to run in the near future. I've recently overhauled it - can any of you spare a minute to look it over? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sure I'll search for little nitpicks but I'm not really an expert in English grammar; maybe @Sturmvogel 66: can help. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

So what do we call the cruiser and destroyer projects?

Now that we can expect that OMT will complete its FT in a couple of years, my question is what do we call the equivalent projects for cruisers and destroyers? I can't think of any nicknames for cruisers off-hand, but destroyers were often called the greyhounds of the sea, or, less formally, tin cans. I figure that there are about 1,500 cruiser articles, depending on how we handle the transition from frigates to cruisers, and only about 5,000 destroyer articles to do, again depending on how we define them (include escort destroyers like the WW2-era Hunts, and what about destroyer escorts and their British equivalent sloops?). So enough to keep us busy for a couple of decades, despite the several hundred good articles that we've already improved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we talked about this at one point, but I don't remember when or where. I'm not much of a name guy, so I'll leave that to someone else. Let's not forget about an ironclad topic (though we've made quite good progress on that already without a formal project - I got the German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and Ottoman topics done, and I know you've done more than a few Russian, French, and British ships, among others). One major problem with the destroyer topic is that they're still building them, so even if we got all of the existing ships to GA tomorrow, we've got, what, another 20 or so Arleigh Burkes slated for the next decade? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The easiest thing for both the cruisers and destroyers would be to limit them by period, so no overarching topic, I agree. Documentation of the WW2-era ships would be the easiest, although pre- and post-war careers would be problematic for many ships, as I've been discovering with my Italian DDs. As usual the ships of the minor navies would be the most troublesome.

I'd completely forgotten about the ironclads as I've done little work on them lately aside from a few Russian ones whenever Steve McLaughlin published new articles on them. That topic is reasonably complete, but the same can't be said for the British and Americans, although they're certainly doable. The French ships generally aren't well documented, especially in English, and those of the minor navies like Peru, Spain or Norway are even less so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That's true - though I've been planning on finishing all of the Italian ones (which, in fairness, only includes 3 post-WWII ships), and the Germans helpfully stopped building cruisers after the 1930s ;) But for the USN, RN, etc., it would certainly be easier to do topics by types, since that's an easy way to limit the scope (and helpfully allows one to exclude guided missile cruisers, for instance).

The good thing about the American ironclads is DANFS, which should give us a fairly decent account of their careers (though I'll admit I haven't looked at any entries for the monitors to see what level of detail they have). For the British ships, I've noticed that Takvaal has been going through newspapers and such to add details (for instance, here). Hopefully, if we got the basic articles done with the general sources we have, material like what Takvaal's been adding will beef them up enough to be reasonably complete.

Check your email, by the way ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Even with the problems getting documentation on peace-time careers for RN and US ships, I have little doubt that we can get them through GA, it's getting them past that that I'm concerned about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: & @Parsecboy: How about "Operation Deus Bellum"? Deus bellum means "war gods" in Latin and the war gods in Greek, Roman, etc... were always been seen violent and the sign of war and violence. Destroyer, on the other hand, have the noun "destroy" in it which is used as a crush or demolish in something. We can use this as a kind of symbolic sign like Titan in the Greek mythology. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. I don't know if we want to start a formal project page or just run it informally. I've got tables set up for most of the German cruisers already set up here, but that's more for my own tracking purposes than anything else. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you all considered doing aircraft carriers? I would think that would be a (relatively) small effort. Also, since you all are the only ones really working in this group, I wonder if you should just hijack the other phases of OMT and make them about cruisers/destroyers instead. just some outsider thoughts :). Kees08 (Talk) 18:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point - I don't have a whole lot of interest in doing the other phases, myself. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a neat way to continue the legacy of the project, it would be a shame for it to look 'incomplete' when so many years of effort have been put into it. You could even name the phases if you still wanted fancy names. Kees08 (Talk) 16:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• There's one thing that bothers me. I agree it'd be a better idea to merge the rest of the warships with this project. But I wanna know what we should do with the current phases? Maybe merge them with other projects like guns and cannon to the project: gunnery and biography of important persons to the wikiproject:biography and both to maritime? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I dunno, I'll probably put in the work to get all the weapons up to C or B class as I like ordnance. I'd like to do more battle articles, especially as part of topics, but the bigger ones can be absolute beasts. I'm leery of more carrier articles as Hornet took nearly a solid month of work and I've already knocked off most of low-hanging fruit among the IJN and RN carriers. I've also toyed with doing a topic on the American prewar carriers as only three of them survived the war, not to mention I've already done two of them. But I'm not at all sure that I want to do any more of the Essex's. Well, aside from the two crippled by kamikazes that were never returned to service, those shouldn't be too demanding. I'm not too interested in biographies though, especially as documentation for rear admirals is pretty scarce if that was their highest rank.
• In all seriousness, I made the original post tongue-in-cheek, and see no actual need to formalize anything past OMT. I've spent a lot of time recently building large topic boxes for cruisers, DDs and subs, which will give me plenty of ideas on what might strike my fancy. I know Parsec's done much the same thing, though I am curious when he's going to buckle down and get to work on those Imperial German torpedo boats and Nazi subs to complete his ultimate topic on Warships of Germany, 1870–1945 ;-).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Operation Slightly Less Majestic Titan"? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Funny guy, don't you owe us Hawaii or something?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a couple books to my collection in an effort to fill it out more, but there really isn't that much info available. :-/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then what does it need before we send it to FAC?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: A fair point. This to start. I'll also need to strip out all the unreliable stuff from Scarpaci and Parsch, which won't leave a ton of article left. Also, per footnote one, should the article title drop "USS"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

At least G&D and Friedman have enough material between them to justify an article though it will be a bit shorter without the unreliable ones. I'm not really worried about the proper use of the prefix since it was never commissioned as the prefix does serve to tell the reader than it was an American ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Call it 'Legion' - for they are many.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Another topic done

Don't know if you saw it, but the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy topic has passed its Good Topic nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And the Battleships of France topic is promoted as well. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Damn good work, mon frère. I believe that I owe a few of my own.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent presentation of displacements

I understand that sometimes the consistent statistics are not available on more obscure vessels, but on well documented battleship classes, should we use a consistent standard? I am surprised to the the King George V-class battleship (1939) represented at the "deep load" statistic which at first blush to our readers seems to overstate the size of the ships in relation to other combatants of the era. This is not the only example, but seems more glaring due to the prominent role these vessels had in several WWII battles, and their origins in adherence to the lapsing treaty policies.

To readers less aware of the nuances of statistics, as written our articles show the KGV class to be larger than the Bismarck Class. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's worked on that particular article in years, so it hasn't been brought up to more current standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)