Talk:Japanese battleship Kōtetsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Maritime warfare task force United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese battleship Kōtetsu article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Look at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/azuma.htm for an assortment of much better pictures. Stan 23:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. I took the opportunity to upload a higher-resolution version of the picture used here. Gdr 23:50, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

".. surprise night abordage by the rebel Kaiten, essentially thanks .. "

abordage points to an empty stub. What does the term mean? Kaiten points to ??WWII?? suicide torpedoes. From the context this seems to be unlikely to be related. I assume this section describes a night attack by some sort of "special forces" group since on board Gattling guns are credited with sucessful defence. This is far from certain from the explanation. I have no basis to resolve the uncertainty, and have thus made no change to the published article.

Of course, you're right. Article on the "Japanese warship Kaiten" coming up soon. PHG 12:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Should this be merged with the entry for the CSS Stonewall? They are, after all the same ship, and with, to be entirely honest, not a complicated enough (or long enough) history to make the combined entry unwieldy.

I could do it...

LordAmeth 05:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged, as a lot of the information on these articles is pretty redundant. RMG 22:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the two. There really wasn't much on the CSS Stonewall page anyway. LordAmeth 12:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)