Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sunken battleships/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of sunken battleships edit

List of sunken battleships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the page has grown to its ideal size, is reliably cited, undergone both a Peer Review and the copyediting of other editors, and have implemented all suggestions of all editors that have previously reviewed this article. –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Mattximus edit

On the map, why are some battleships stars and others circles? Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not entirely know (nor did I know those were there). They seem to denote major clusters of sinkings, such as at Tsushima, but then don't do that for Jutland. I had designs to redesign it for a time while I was working on the article. –Vami_IV✠ 01:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sunk and later salvaged seems to be a redundant table, is it not? I think the ships should be moved to the other tables. A note can be added that it was salvaged, but the other tables are all reasons for the sinking, so this one stands out as a sore thumb. Mattximus (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am in this process. –Vami_IV✠ 03:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golbez edit

  • The map being unclear is a big sticking point. I can't find any reasoning for the stars. If it's multiple sinkings, then why not Pearl Harbor? If it's scuttlings, then what's the star off Japan?
  • The note for the Arizona's condition should include it being part of a memorial; curiously, the memorial in Phoenix is mentioned but not the one on the ship itself.
 Done This is incorrect; the memorial at Pearl Harbor is mentioned, but it features more prominently now so no harm done. –Vami_IV✠ 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that... ok, so the first table is "sunk in combat." So we know what sunk them - combat. The "lost at sea" table, on the other hand, offers no clue as to why the ship sunk. I think a column here would be very useful. "Struck a rock," "collided with [other ship]," "ran aground," etc.
 Done –Vami_IV✠ 00:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "sunk and later salvaged" table seems problematic to me. Presumably, many of these ships could also belong in the other tables, like "sunk in combat". Maybe its rows should be merged into the appropriate tables, with the salvage/scrapping data added to the notes column?
  • The targets destroyed by specific bombs should include links to those nuclear tests.
  • Links to the scuttling at Scapa Flow should be added to each ship scuttled there; it currently only exists in a footnote.
 Done –Vami_IV✠ 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote c reads very strangely, like it was translated. I'm not sure it's even needed.
 Done Though, I added it as two supporting sentences where the footnote originally was. –Vami_IV✠ 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I'm not sure what footnote d adds.
 Done Removed. –Vami_IV✠ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote g doesn't need the coordinates, they're already in the table.
 Done Removed footnote. –Vami_IV✠ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote h is good but the "Disputed" in the table should just give the range of deaths, so "950-1200" or something like that. Something that gives an idea of the scope.
 Done –Vami_IV✠ 05:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote i mentions a second sinking for the Peresvet; the article mentions it was redesignated Sagami and sank as that, but there's no mention in the article at all of Sagami. Shouldn't there be? Or did the refit made after salvaging demote it from being a battleship?
 Done A brief service history now constitutes a note placed in the battleship's "Fate" cell. –Vami_IV✠ 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote k, see notes for footnote h.
 Done –Vami_IV✠ 03:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote l... the other entries in the table mention when someone was captured, so shouldn't this info be in the table? And wouldn't the people shot count as casualties?
 Done as of the Grand Recitation –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of Footnote m - like it maybe being Suwo - would work better in the notes column rather than as a footnote, I think.
 Done as of the Grand Recitation –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Golbez (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments from auntieruth edit

  • several items in bib have no notes pointing to them (or I couldn't find them): Chesneau, Roger (2004) Preston, Antony (1982). Lyon, Hugh; Moore, John E. (also has no date). Allen, W.H (first one). Is incomplete citation.
  • Citation bot fixed some of the problems, with Allen, but the problems still remain of citations pointing to them.
 Done as of the Grand Recitation. –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also a bit stuck on the map, and confused about the difference between those sunk at Scapa Flow and those scuttled there. Was there actually a difference? auntieruth (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the difference between those sunk at Scapa Flow and those scuttled there? auntieruth (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am moving all of "Sunk and later salvaged" ships into their appropriate categories as per Golbez's comments. –Vami_IV✠ 23:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map comment edit

I'm aware of the problems with the map, but I'm going to make that the last item I fix. –Vami_IV✠ 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.  :) auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy edit

  • Seems odd to me to include ships that sank after striking mines in the "lost at sea" category, particularly Bouvet, since she was actively engaging Ottoman shore batteries at the time of her sinking. To add to the inconsistency, Petropavlovsk, the first entry in the "Sunk in combat" section, was sunk by mines. As was Hatsuse. And Yashima. And Regina Margherita.
    • I have moved the latter four ships into "Lost at sea" and will be looking at the pages for each and every battleship on the list for cause of sinking. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the German battleships listed in the scuttling section were later raised and scrapped, thus they should be in the "sunk and salvaged" section.
    • "Sunk and salvaged" is being liquidated. The German warships scuttled at Scapa Flow have been moved into "Scuttled" with accompanying notes and citations (as a result, Gröner, p. 26 is veeeeeeery overused). –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the Russian ships sunk at Port Arthur, raised, and commissioned into the Japanese fleet should be listed in the salvaged section also.
    • See above reply. The Russian vessels sunk at Port Arthur have already been moved to the appropriate sections, along with a brief service history as necessary. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of reference issues:
    • Citations should be formatted the same (i.e., either all short cites or long cites, all SFN templates or none, etc.)
    • Lots of harv errors with citations not linking to references
    • wrecksite is, I think, user generated
    • What makes this a reliable source?
    • Ditto for worldwar1.com
    • Same for battleship-cruisers.co.uk
      • Also removed. There is now a worrying shortage of citation for HMS Formidable and I do not have the books to look this up. –Vami_IV✠ 22:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And forgottenwrecks.maritimearchaeologytrust.org
    • And burtonbradstock.org.uk
      • Removed –Vami_IV✠ 21:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And worldnavalships.com
    •  Done Purged –Vami_IV✠ 11:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And naval-history.net. At this point, I should just ask for justification for any of the online references used in the list apart from DANFS and Combined Fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • scapaaflowwrecks at least seems legitimate to me. I'll look into the other ones and likely make an effort to replace them. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still lots of long cites mixed in with short cites - doesn't matter if it's a book or a journal or whatever, they all need to be the same format
    • I've moved all the journals too their own section and will be doing the same for the Combined Fleet citations. WIP. –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still need to get rid of the citations to wrecksite - user-generated websites are inherently unreliable for our purposes.
    •  Done Purged all but one, which was a photograph of a newspaper clipping –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navweaps needs to go too, it's not reliable, unfortunately
  • I don't know enough about scapaflowwrecks.com, but they have an about page
    • I am going to leave scapaflowwrecks.com on the article as I feel that they are legitimate. –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for [2], though the site is blocked on my office network (which isn't a great sign)
  • Several dead links
  • Harv errors need to be fixed, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a script to fix them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm using sfn not harv.
      • I know that - install the tool and you'll see what I'm talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoa, this is pretty handy. I'll get right on those harv errors and sort the bastards out once and for all! –Vami_IV✠ 07:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done thanks to your handy tool. –Vami_IV✠ 10:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more things from me:

  • There are a couple of places in the initial section where citations are needed - the bit about the time of battleships being the senior ship having run its course, the Toulon scuttling, and the traditional/legal status of ships as war graves.
  • There's an WP:ENGVAR issue - I see "armor" and "harbor" but the conversion templates all use "metre". The initial version of the page appears to be using American spellings, so the templates should be brought into line with that (so just add "sp=us" to each template).
    •  Done
  • This one is purely subjective, so feel free to ignore it, but I'd rather use a photo of Arizona now, rather than immediately after the attack - something like File:USS Arizona Memorial (aerial view).jpg.Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THE GRAND RE-CITATION edit

I have, over the course of three to four days (I cannot recall, only that I pulled many all-nighters for this), completed a massive edit to address two things in finality: sfn cite errors and the defunct "sunk and later salvaged" section. Here is a laundry list of just about every single thing I did:

  1. Every single last book and journal citation has been repaired. I deleted the Bibliography to accomplish this, so I had to go through each and every battleship's page to find the correct source for that information.
  2. I found myself ripping out or otherwise replacing a host of online sources, as per Parsecboy's suggestion.
  3. Added a citation for the amount of lives lost with IJN Yamato in the lead.
  4. Every battleship on the list that at some point had a change or difference in its name now has a footnote (efn) on its name. All are complete with the number of names, when they were named, and the citation to match. Short of the USS Arizona or some of the Japanese warships on the list, these make just about every entry for a Russian battleship the longest on the list in source form.
  5. All Journals have been moved out of long citation form and the Bibliography to form their own chapter of it.
  6. I have done likewise for all instances of Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships entries.
  7. All instances of [example] 400—700 now have the word "killed" next to them.
  8. All entries for all ships in the "Lost at sea" section have had their fates shortened to for example "Struck a mine," rather than the redundant "struck a mine, 5 June 5555."
  9. All "coast defense" ships have been removed from this list. They are not battleships.
  10. Everytime that a number was given to me by an article, I have listed the number of men killed, injured, and captured, rather than just killed.

I eagerly await further comments. –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_sunken_battleships/archive1&oldid=1076195922"