Talk:HMS Royal Oak (08)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Royal Oak (08) article.
Article policies
Featured article star HMS Royal Oak (08) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Great article.

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

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 posn. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] HMS Vanguard (1909)

In the notes alluding to Commander R.F. Nicholls and the loss of HMS Vanguard, a couple of problems. My copy of Miller was printed in 2005, and so may be different to the original, but it gives the first printing as 2000, not 1999. With that in mind my edition (which apparently contains many corrections) has all the relevent information pertaining to the loss of Vanguard on P.50 and not P.51. Also there is NO mention whatsoever of the cause of the sinking of Vanguard, which makes the citation of the book for Note g. somewhat spurious. There is the statement on P.49 of my copy right before the reference to Vanguard, having just mentioned the loss of Natal, "before the war was over, unstable explosives had taken yet more lives", which is a fairly poor allusion to the loss of Vanguard.

At the very least there's the Report of the Court of Enquiry at GWPDA, or on the Scapa theme This Great Harbour by W.S. Hewison (also published by Birlinn) also refers to the sinking in a little more detail on pages 111-113 and reflects the findings of the Enquiry. --Harlsbottom (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My handwritten notes for Scapa give its publication date as 1999, taken from the British Library's copy, and probably (I don't recall) from inside the front cover. However, their own catalogue says 2000: so this probably should be changed. Referencing this sentence to Miller does indeed look problematic, and it looks like I have erred. The story is better-referenced in Naval Wrecks of Scapa Flow, though this too makes no direct mention of Nicholls. What do you suggest we change it to? Regards, — BillC talk 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I have no problem at all with Miller being referenced as to being on both Vanguard and Royal Oak - I haven't seen the connection made anywhere else to be honest. If Naval Wrecks discusses the actual loss of Vanguard then by all means use that, as it sounds, if not I can use Hewison.
By the by, if you think it's appropriate I can add to the outrage raised by the plan to salvage Royal Oak in 1957 - The Times reported rather extensively on the matter. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go for it - not that you need my or anyone else's permission, of course. (Snyder gives the year as 1958 in The Royal Oak Disaster, interestingly.) I have given a better reference for the Vanguard disaster, and put a {{cn}} next to the Nichols claim. I'd temporarily remove it but it's a bit of a nuisance with the {{ref_label}} template. — BillC talk 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: the World War I Document Archive gives Midshipman R F Nichols as a survivor ("Not on Board") from Vanguard. Naval Wrecks of Scapa Flow says that the missing officers were on board Royal Oak for a concert. I'll keep looking and see if I can join them up a bit better. — BillC talk 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat infuriatingly a scouring of The Times' has left me none the wiser to Commander Nichols - it has raised another issue though. My Hewison "states" that, of the ship's complement;

  • 15 Officers were on Royal Oak for a concert.
  • 2 Midshipmen had been seconded to submarines.
  • 2 Sub-Lieutenants had been seconded to destroyers.
  • 49 Ratings on leave.
  • 22 "Ship's Company" returning from leave.

The Times of 14 July, 1917 states that 24 officers and 71 men (that tallies) were not on board and survived and we've 6 officers unaccounted for. So without any direct evidence we can't say Nichols was on Royal Oak at the time, which is a shame as it would be a nice connection. Hopefully you turn up something. Apologies for taking this a bit far - someone needs to update the Vanguard page!

As to permission, you've obviously been the driving force behind this page, and there are alas, some people out there who take Summarizing far too much. --Harlsbottom (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your views on Nichols; a case, I think, a case of me taking two and two and making five. I've dropped that part of the statement from the article. We appear to be on safe ground with 'away from the ship that night', which I have referenced to the GWPDA website. I missed the Jutland painting you'd added, by the way. Nice one. — BillC talk 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)