Talk:HMS Royal Oak (08)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The proposed move was logical, not controversial, and not blocked, so I made the move myself. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

HMS Royal Oak (08) → HMS Royal Oak (1914) … Rationale: All the other ships named HMS Royal Oak are at titles with the following format: "HMS Royal Oak (abcd)", where "abcd" is the year of launch. It seems odd that this article should be different. HMS Royal Oak (1914) is already occupied by a redirect so I don't know how to move it. — Tamino 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as above. Tamino 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem?

Much of the current text appears to have been copied from here, though it is not clear whether copyright is asserted on that work. I am intending to make a substantial expansion/rewrite of the article, so this potential issue will be removed in due course. — BillC ^talk 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All such material has now been removed. — BillC ^talk 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Great article.

This is a great article, and should definitely get GA status. Jolb 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

It's an interesting read, and kudos to Bill who seems to have done most of it. I've assessed and passed this against the criteria.

1. Well written - pass

2. Factually accurate and verifiable - pass

3. Broad in its coverage - pass

4. NPOV - pass

5. Stable - pass

6. Images - pass

A couple of other things though - anything you can use from the London Gazette? Can you convert the references to {{cite web}} or other specialised templates - not the book references though? The auto peer review javascript program says:

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 tons, use 000 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 tons.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Does Donitz's book have an ISBN, or can you link it to the same book on googlebooks? Bit more work and I think it would be a good featured article. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tackled the above points with the exception of external copyedit review. I will be passing the article out for peer review shortly. — BillC ^talk 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Roll of Honour

There may be a way to present the Roll of Honour in a way that does not take up so much room, e.g. as a table of 5 or 6 columns. Maybe another editor could help here. 81.156.63.69 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Roll of Honour is inappropriate here. An encyclopaedia article is a summary of a topic. This same list is presented in at least one of the web pages linked in the External Links section, and that is a much more appropriate means of doing so. You might like to present your idea at WikiProject Military history, and see if you get any support there for it.— BillC ^talk 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate addition to the article. What value does it add? How does it increase understanding of the topic? Why can't it simply exist as a page linked to amongst the rest of the external links? Please do not continue to re-add this content without first discussing it here. Carom 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. Please do not keep removing the list without consensus. 81.156.63.69 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider that Wikipedia is not a memorial and we do not list full casualty reports for other battles, engagements or conflicts. Also, please present some positive reasoning for the inclusion of this information. Carom 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An offer to undergo dispute resolution has been made. — BillC ^talk 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Government in 1937

Does "Spanish Government forces" in the Spanish Civil War section refer to the Republicans or to the Nationalists? The linked article Spanish State refers to the 1939-1978 period, so I assume it's Franco's Nationalists, but some ambiguity remains. In 1937 the Republicans , as far as I remember, were still acknowledged by Britain as the legitimate Spanish Government. L'omo del batocio 09:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Let me check my sources and clarify that section. — BillC ^talk 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've got:

• Royal Oak's log 02-Feb-1937:

11:35 3 foreign aircraft sighted and 3 bombs fell 3 cables off star'd [starboard] bow, two exploding, approx pos^n. 36°10'N 04°42'W. co [course] 090° sp. [speed] 6kts

11:45 bombing heard on coast to northward

12:25 a/co [altered course] 270° sp. 8kts.

• The next item is a note verbale from the British chargé d'affaires based at the 'British Embassy, Valencia'. It describes the aircraft as having 'Government markings'
• The third item is the Admiralty report on the incident, which concludes that "the aircraft [were]... Spanish Government machines who mistake HMS Royal Oak for an insurgent warship..."

From these, and given that Valencia was the Republicans' capital during the Spanish Civil War, and spent time besieged by Franco's Nationalists, it looks pretty clear that the sources are referring to the Republicans as 'the Government', and the Nationalists as the 'insurgents'. My error, then: a bad link in the article. I've changed it to point instead to the Second Spanish Republic; if you think there's a better link, or the article needs rewording, please go ahead. Regards, — BillC ^talk 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

added image Fleetsignal.jp

I have NO IDEA what the copyright tag for this image should be, it doesn't fall into any of the category i can see.

I own the document and i scanned it in, and its an original document from 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincspoacher (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)