Talk:Battleship

Is this a misspelling of intimidation? 2607:FEA8:8760:A900:1BE:E642:694E:8A15 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a typo or other error. It's fixed now. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is in terrible condition for an FA. Page needed tags, non-primary/tertiary source needed and especially citation needed tags everywhere, amounting up to 23. There is also an orange banner at the end of the article. Unless these can be resolved this article is getting submitted to WP:FAR. 750h+ 10:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we might just about be ship shape (I couldn't help myself) - citation needed/page needed tags are gone, as is the orange banner. References have been significantly improved in terms of quality, and some fairly significant omissions have been corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow, the article does look much better. Without a doubt I don't think we need to send this to FAR anymore, but we'd probably need an expert to check. 750h+ 23:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: is the other major editor in this topic area - he could give the article a look-over. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've gone through the article, but only needed to do a minor amount of clean up. I don't believe that it needs an FAR any more thanks to Parsecboy's work. Breaking out the individual chapters in the various volumes of Conway's would be nice to have done, but it's not a requirement for FA, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for going over the article Sturm (and for doing a bit of cleanup). I left the Conway's refs general so I wouldn't have to deal with 30 or so refs just for those - basically half of the References sections would have been chapters in the 3 relevant volumes, which I felt would have been overkill. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Have noticed the following passage in the article, which is clearly making a valid point, but it's not entirely factual: "Early on in the pre-dreadnought era, most navies standardized on the 12-inch gun; only Germany remained the significant outlier, relying on 11-inch and even 9.4-inch guns for its pre-dreadnoughts."

Obviously, Germany doesn't become a major naval power overnight and is not one at the start of the period of pre-dreadnought construction; meanwhile Austria-Hungary is designing and commissioning battleships with similar batteries of 9.4-inch guns.

Russia & Britain absolutely do settle upon 12-inch from the early-mid 1890s (excepting second-class ships with 10-inch batteries), along with the British-influenced and supplied Japanese from the late 1890s.

While this is happening, France is building the last of her mixed-battery pre-dreadnoughts (absolutely settling on 12"), the USA returns to and is still constructing 13-inch armed ships up to the Illinois class (entering service 1900) and Italy has no concept of a standardised battleship or battleship armament throughout the period, being 4 x 13.5, 4 x 10, 4 x 12 & 4 x 8, then 2 x 12 & 12 x 8.

There was much more dynamism and flux in battleship design, armament and battery calibre during the period, which begins sometime around the start of the 1890s and ends abruptly in 1906. Can we reflect this whilst still acknowledging that 12-inch was certainly a benchmark calibre for the major navies to design against? ~2025-38816-34 (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of that section? Most of these points are already addressed in the article. This is also a high-level article on battleships in general, so we can only go into so much detail here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)