Talk:Crossing the T

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

Crossing the tee was a tactic only developed in the late 19th early 20th century when steam power allowed ships to manoeuvre speedily in line astern. Before then, the term was raking and was usually only possible between single ships or in a few cases when the usual line of battle gave way to a general melee and several ships were able to rake the same one as the line was broken. Dabbler 14:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why the page move?

"Crossing the T" is the form in which I've always encountered this term, and it's overwhelmingly more common in Google [1]. So why the page move? Gdr 16:47:00, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

I moved it back. Gdr 10:47:28, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

[edit] manoeuvrable vs maneuverable

I changed the article to use maneuverable and was reverted. I may be a bit ethnocentric but I don't think this is a case of that. First off, when user:Dabbler reverted he claimed that the royal navy invented the term, yet the article makes no mention of this. If you in fact know this to be the case, please add it to the article. Secondly, articles related to british topics do not need to use british spellings. Ignoring ethnocentrism, let's just go with which is more common. Google has about 1.5 million hits for maneuverable and about .3 million for manoeuvrable. If you'd prefer a more substantial source, dictionary .com has a definition for both, but maneuverable's is far more extensive, and in the definition for manoeuvrable it's example is "a highly maneuverable ship". Vicarious 13:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style which states in one of the top paragraphs "Disputes over style issues
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." I would suggest that the above is not a "substantial reason for the change". The Royal Navy was the largest navy at the time the term was invented so the use of British English should not be ruled out by subject matter. (I agree I cannot substantiate my claim that they invented it, that was infelicitous wording in a hurry). Further down in the section headed National varieties of English there is the following statement:
If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.
If you look at the history of the article, I was one of the earliest contributors to this article and I introduced the word manoeuvre and I chose deliberately to use that spelling. Dabbler 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, maneuver being five times as prevalent (on google) is significant. As for the 'if all else fails' solution, that's fine, but we're not there yet. I think presently we're at the point of "If there's no strong tie [to a region/dialect], try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect." There may be a weak tie to the british navy, but certainly not a strong one. It seems the best solution would be removing the word entirely and rephrasing in it's absence, if possible (and I think it is). Vicarious 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that you can remove the word without materially affecting the article, by all means give it a try. However, Wikipedia is intended to be an international collaboration, not an American hegemony, so why should I and thousands of others change our way of spelling our language to suit you? There are many millions of English speakers and readers out there who are not American and spell in the "British" or Commonwealth way. If you have so much time to spare that you wish to convert or write out all Wikipedia's spellings to the American versions, I can offer you many more. Color:colour, humor:humour, program:programme, catalog:catalogue, hemoglobin:haemoglobin. Dabbler 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I never expected this to be an issue, and no it's really not worth my time so I don't plan on getting into it again. However, I accidentally got into it this time and refuse to let the other person win the debate when they're wrong. Your argument of 'why should thousands of others change their way to suit me' is an illustration of your ethnocentrism, not mine. I already explained why, because my way is 5 times as common. So, why should the majority of people change their spelling to suit you and the minority? I think a big part of your argument still clings to something you have no basis for, that this is a mostly british article. In the absence of facts that's yet another case of your ethnocentrism. The fact that upon reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style you skipped over the parts about making a compromise to suit everyone and went immediately to the "if all else fails" solution to defend your view is the third example of your ethnocentrism. Vicarious 07:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to stick my oar in here, articles relating to British topics should use British spelling. That's Wikipedia policy, precisely to avoid these kinds of arguments. I understand your point, Vicarious, but your bluntly saying we should all use American spelling because it's more prevalent in this case is rather offensive and doesn't help your argument at all. Leithp 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You somehow missed one of the key points, this isn't a british article. I understand the policy, and if anyone has evidence this is a british term, feel free to add it; but there is no such evidence currently. Vicarious 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why I should. The first significant contribution to the article used the spelling with the 'o'. And my point was related to you saying "articles related to british topics do not need to use british spellings". Leithp 08:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is frustrating because I'm saying the same things to you that I said to him. That comment was before I read the policy, since I read the policy I've been more than willing to comply to it, but again, this is not a british article. And to repeat my point about the "first significant contributor"; that is the, "if all else fails" solution, not the primary one. Vicarious 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You haven't demonstrated any compelling reason why it shouldn't be in Commonwealth English. American English isn't the default for Wikipedia, both are equally acceptable. I don't understand why other users should have to go around justifying the use of their native spelling. Also, your point about Commonwealth English users being in the minority is incorrect as well as being irrelevant. Have a look at the population of India. If you use the internet as your sample you'd come to the conclusion that the majority of humanity is comprised of male, white Americans aged under 40. Leithp 14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
People routinely have to justify the use of their native spelling. If I were to write an article on British currency and use American spelling I'd have to justify that; so, if you don't understand why people need to justify their native spelling, perhaps you should reread Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Writing articles on wikipedia to accommodate people that don't have internet is like building a car with the cruise control writing in braille, it makes no sense. Blind people won't drive cars, and people without internet won't be reading a website. By far the biggest thing I'm distraught by is that neither of you suggested, or after I suggested showed any interest in, compromise. You were both far more familiar with wikipedia's policies on this issue than I was when this issue began, yet rather than following the policy and trying to come up with a compromise you both favored the British spelling, and as an added distressing fact, continuously pointed out only the part of the policy which favored that view while neglecting the part that has priority. Vicarious 00:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
But this is just a general subject. Lots of articles on Wikipedia are written in Commonwealth English, you'll just have to accept that. There is no need to justify the spelling here because you still haven't given any reason why it shouldn't be in CwE, just a spurious google search. There is absolutely no reason why this should be in US English. What's the problem? Is it just that you don't like seeing articles that aren't in your native spelling?
And I don't know about you, but when I write articles I'm writing with a mind towards Wikipedia 1.0 and towards eventual print distribution. Therefore everyone in the world should be accommodated as far as possible and we should avoid systematic bias.
As for your last part, I'm flabbergasted. Dabbler suggested a compromise at the beginning and you ignored it, apparently with the intention of trying to get the article rewritten in your native spelling. And I've read the manual of style several times, I understand the concepts. I suggest that YOU re-read it and seriously consider what your intention in this discussion is. I'll repeat what I said above, US English is NOT default for Wikipedia. Leithp 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That is not true. On March 17 I wrote "If you think that you can remove the word without materially affecting the article, by all means give it a try." By that I agreed that if you could rewrite the article to avoid the use of the controversial word, I would accept that. However, I don't see why I should have to do all the work of a rewrite when you are the one complaining.
I don't want to have to rewrite every article I have contributed to in Wikipedia to change my contributions from my native mode of spelling to your foreign one. Incidentally in this case, manoeuvre is etymologically far more defensible. It comes from the French Main-oeuvre or Hand Work and originally meant a dexterous hand action which developed in meaning to a strategem or movement of forces. Dabbler
I didn't say you didn't acknowledge the idea of compromise, I said you didn't suggest it, or show interest in it after I suggested it. Saying, 'you can try if you really want to' (paraphrase), is not showing interest, it's acknowledging the existence of. Saying you don't want to change the articles you've written from your spelling to mine is gibberish. I've never even hinted at the idea, the most I'd ever even fathom you doing would be changing it to neither, not to mine. And no, I don't think compromise is unreasonable. In fact, writing in NPOV is constantly changing the way you normally think and speak to meet the criteria of wikipedia, for a stable middle ground. Vicarious 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are claiming that my way of spelling is POV? You are the one who raised the whole issue because of your POV that no compromise except doing it your wayis possible. The word manoeuvre is a perfectly valid English word. You don't accept that because in your POV only the American spelling is correct. What compromise are you offering? All you are doing is to tell me to change my way of spelling or else to change my choice of words both of which have worked well for me in a number of different countries for nearly 50 years? What incredible arrogance you have. Dabbler 03:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not saying your way is POV, I was making an analogy. POV is to NPOV as regional dialect is to non regional dialect. I'm not trying to get my way, my way would be maneuver, but I'm willing to compromise instead. I don't think only the American way is correct, from the beginning I talked about the American way being more common, but never did I say it was the only way. I'm really not trying to upset you and I'm sorry if that's what I'm doing. I don't consider British english an inferior language, nor American english superior. I'm simply hoping to find middle ground that can satisfy everyone. Vicarious 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I see you have made your suggested edits and I will consider the matter closed. Dabbler 09:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Nelson?

Not that I know much about naval tactics, but I'm sure I read somewhere that it was Admiral Lord Nelson who invented the tactic, and he was around way before "the late 19th century". In which case, shouldn't he be getting a mention here? Gatoclass 11:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact Nelson's action of "breaking the line" at the Battle of Trafalgar was the exact opposite. In steam battleship times, he would have had his T crossed and would have been at a considerable disadvantage. the technological differences between wooden ships with broadsides and steel ships with turrets changed the requirements for successful tactical manoevering a lot. Dabbler 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I accept that, it's just that I've read he invented the tactic - even though the technology didn't really exist to take advantage of it at the time. Gatoclass 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

People who say he invented the tactic have misunderstood what "crossing the T" means. It means having the line of battle go past the head of your column as in a capital T, not your column breaking the other line as in a lower case t. Dabbler 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The technology has always existed, in wooden sailing ships the crossed line was even more screwed than turreted ships since most of their guns faced port or starboard and few in front. Also turreted ships, if the 2nd. 3rd, so on ships in the crossed line have turrets which elevated high enough, could fire over the ship in front whereas the forward weapons on sailing vessels were pretty much fixed.
I don't think Nelson ever got the chance to cross a T the way Togo did at Tsushima or like the US did in the battle of the Surigao Straight during WW 2. Nelson broke through a line at Trafalger though. creating a lower case t as discussed by Dabbler. Anynobody 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, in Nelson's time the standard tactic was the line, where ships basically were supposed to sail past the enemy fleet in a nice neat line blowing each other to bits with sequential broadsides, hence the term "ship o' the line". This was actually a pretty stupid tactic that rarely worked because the smaller force would usually try to avoid engagement altogether.
Nelson's innovation IIRC was to sail directly toward the enemy in order to get right amongst the enemy fleet and engage them at close quarters. Thus, instead of having two lines of ships majestically sailing past each other in parallel, you have two lines perpendicular to one another - hence "crossing the T".
That is my understanding of the term, I am given to understand that Nelson invented the tactic - or at least, revived it - so I am somewhat perplexed to see him being removed from the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nelson's tactic at Trafalgar (though not at the Nile, or Copenhagen) was to "break the line of battle" which has quite different tactical reasons as I have attempted to explain above. By breaking the line Nelson's ships were able to engage individual French ship's at close quarters where he anticipated (correctly) that their superior gunnery would allow them to prevail. In order to break the line he was prepared to expose his own ships to raking fire from the French-Spanish line.
Crossing the T does not involve getting into a melee. Because of the gunnery range and manoeuvrability of steam powered ships, crossing the T gave the advantage to the line which passes in front of the column, which is the position of the French-Spanish line held at Trafalgar. In other words Nelson would have had his T crossed putting him at a considerable disadvantage if the battle had been fought under battleship conditions. You cannot compare the tactical thinking behind the two different technologies, in sailing ship times it was a calculated risk to achieve a superior position, in steam ship times it would have been a near suicidal blunder. Nelson would probably not have blundered. Dabbler (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing the T in modern naval warfare?

For battle groups that are not centered around a carrier, would it still be viable to use a battle line formation in an attempt to cross an opponent's T, with anti-ship missiles substituting for guns? It could be even easier to set up with the aid of satellite imagery Masterblooregard 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ships engaging each other with cannon will probably always have use for it, however the invention and dominance of the anti ship missile has rendered the tactic obsolete. Anynobody 05:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)