Talk:Battleship

This article states, "Unlike the ship of the line, the battleships of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had significant vulnerability to torpedoes and mines..." Wooden warships were indeed vulnerable to torpedoes (although they what we would call mines today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.189 (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

:Good point. I would take it to mean, before mines were invented, there was no hazard, but clarification would be good. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

the caption for the diagram of HMS Agamemnon says that she was typical of later predreadnoughts, which is not true. There was ONE other class of predreadnoughts with an intermediate battery of similar caliber, and it was british as well. American and Italian Vessels had 8" secondary while Japanese had 10", only england used 9.2" I think the caption should be changed to say that she was typical of later british predreadnoughts. Wandavianempire (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

:::{{ping|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)