# Talk:HMS Exeter (68)

According to the reference I put in and the web site, the ship sank and was not scuttled. This event also took place on 1 March 1942 after theBattle of the Java Sea the day before.
Cheers

there were EIGHT hits on exeter. 
Regarding the comment "more appropriately called The Battle of Bawean Island" I'm not in total agreement as I only have found reference to the battle also being called the battle of Bawean Islands and also action of Soerabaja in the Combat Narratives of The Java Sea Campaign by Naval Intelligence of US Navy.    You could argue for comment "also known as" but "more appropriately" is an expression too strong.

While there were a few sub classes of the County class, Exeter( And York) were not amoung them. The names alone are not 'counties'- then again London wasnt either- but the dimensions , armament and so on are all different.

Yeah, not County class. Exeter and York were cut down, cheaper derivatives, though. Two built of five planned. My ref calls them Exeter class, with differing bridge and funnel profiles. By the way, London was an English county for many years until the early-1970s, when it was superseded by 'Greater London'. Folks at 137 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Checked further. The wiki article County class cruiser includes the York sub-class and contrasts with other County cruisers. But you're right: there were significant differences. Folks at 137 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just completed a restoration of a photo album belonging to a sailor from the HMS Exeter who recently passed away. The photographs were taken whilst the Exeter was on tour during 1936-1939.
The photographs are in good condition and would enhance your article. In fact they contradict the statement that only one aircraft was carried on board at a time. Photographs clearly show the ships two aircraft stored on board and also launching and recovery practice undertaken with both aircraft. 
The photographs were taken by the ships photographer on board.
I have no idea how to add a photo here or amend your article, obviously I need your permission.
--Sarkyart (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be very helpful, have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images which will give you some advice as to how to upload images, and feel free to ask me if you have further questions. You are right that for a period two aircraft were carried. Port and starboard catapults with an aircraft each were installed 4-5 months after Exeter had been completed, but one of the catapults and presumably its aircraft was removed prior to the outbreak of war. Benea (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION NEEDED
Benea, re your following statement. You are right that for a period two aircraft were carried. Port and starboard catapults with an aircraft each were installed 4-5 months after Exeter had been completed, but one of the catapults and presumably its aircraft was removed prior to the outbreak of war.
NO catapults were removed from Exeter at any time during here career. She entered the war with two catapults and two Walrus planes, the 'dumping' of the two planes over the side (because of fire hazard after being hit) during the Battle of the River Plate is a recorded fact. Even after her 40/41 refit she still carried two catapults but generally only one Walrus. The two catapults are today still visible on the wreck.
InterestedINhistory (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Exeter carried two aircraft catapults throughout her career, that is both before and after her 1940 refit, as can be seen in period photos (and on her wreck). I have changed accordingly under ‘General Characteristics’.
On this note a correction is also needed to the statement under ‘Modifications’ that post Graf Spee modifications included “A larger catapult arrangement and cranes were fitted for handling the Walrus amphibious aircraft.” At the time of her loss Exeter carried only one crane (not cranes), and while the catapults may - and I repeat only ‘may’ - have been modified post Graf Spee, catapults and crane capable of carrying the Walrus aircraft were already carried pre the Graf Spee engagement. There are definately photos of her carrying 2 Walrus aircraft dated prior to her 1940 refit.
NOTE. From studying period photos of the crane pre / post the 1940 refit it appears to be the same crane, but strengthened, i.e. additional strut supports added to its frame. 
I also changed the Walrus link destination (by adding the word 'Supermarine'), as the 'Walrus' link actually took you to the walrus animal page!
2) Although tubs (enclosures) were fitted atop B and Y Turrets to carry a 20mm Oerlikon, the guns themselves were never fitted.
3) Exeter was hit by two torpodoes (as claimed by Inazuma and evidenced on the wreck) not one. Hence I have also changed accordingly under ‘Fate’.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.103.255 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Exeter (68)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

One dupe link
"Most of her crew survived the sinking and was rescued by the Japanese" - I think in BrEng, this should be "and were rescued"
I always get mixed up on how the Brits treat collective nouns
While we're on the subject, watch for ENGVAR - I spy an "armor"
Good catch.
Grad Spee did not have a 203mm secondary battery
You, of all people, should know that one off the top of your head.
"At 06:30, Langsdorff switched..."
"...repeated unsuccessful..." - need a comma after repeated
I'd shift the photo in the Modifications section to the right (and maybe move it up to the top of the section) so it doesn't mess with the headers below it
There are other photos available of the ship on history.navy.mil - for instance, I think this one would be a much better replacement for the overhead shot in the Design section. The one currently in the article is pretty washed out and hard to see. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I initially rejected the overhead photo because of the sun shades obscuring things, but I reconsidered after adjusting the contrast on the one that you suggested, and have added it. What do you think about swapping the sinking photo for one of the ones from the bow?
I had looked at that one too - it's a shame that neither one of them is particularly good, but I guess you can't expect more given the circumstances. I could really go either way. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a new sub heading (entitled 'To the Far East') and several paragraphs of text, as what was there previously with regards the intervening months between when Exeter left the UK (never to return) for the Indian Ocean with Convoy WS-8B in May 1941 until when the article picked back up on 13th February 1942 in the Java area was woefully brief.

The recent additions are woefully sourced, (basically to a whole load of non reliable sources, and should result in the article being delisted as a Good Article if they remain as they are.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, @Nigel Ish:, the u-boat.net stuff is sourced to various ADM files. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I've cleaned up and deleted some of the stuff added earlier in the article, but haven't decided what to do with the new material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
U-boat.net isn't terribly good when it goes away from the subject of U-boats - and the cites are unclear whether they are based on U-boat net or the editors own research in the files - it looks far too much to be based on U-boat.net. In addition much of the rest of the sourcing is far worse - either general non-RS sites on the web or sites which don't actually say anything useful.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'd planned on deleting any usage of Mason as I've found his stuff incorrect before, but I'm OK with your approach as well. I haven't looked, but if there's a Staff Appreciation covering the ops in SE Asia, we should probably incorporate that info in lieu.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So gents, without meaning to be rude, what makes you chaps more expert on Exeter than what is contained ADM reports?  The reason I included the U-boat net page is that the average person cannot access ADM reports, and most what I added is contained / confirmed in them, and is also (only?) viewable on-line to the general public on u.boat.net. Hence why a link to it was added. So is one just wasting their time then trying to help correct some of the inaccuracies that your Exeter Wiki page (still) contains? Or? 
Also, can Mr Nigel kindly advise what he considers 'a whole load of non reliable sources", and also if ADM's themselves are not regarded as being reliable, then what is?  Thanks, Kevin.
EDIT. Do either of you gents have a copy of HMS Exeters After Action Report as submitted to the Admiralty on Captain Oliver Gordons return to UK after being a PoW for three and a half years? Or for that matter any of the ADM reports I quote, and Mr Nigel so easily dismisses? As I do, or have read them.>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:52:30B1:440C:9CE9:FCA4:7C87 (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC) 

Acquaint yourself with WP:PRIMARY, which covers what your main sources appear to be. In general, reliable secondary sources are preferred as they contain analyses by the author(s) which may point out errors or bias in the primary sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore should be based mainly on what is published in reliable secondary (and reliable has very specific meaning on Wikipedia - it must have been subject to editorial control, as well as being written by someone who knows what they are talking about). As such the article on HMS Exeter should be based primarily on what those reliable sources say about Exeter - ADM files are largely unverifiable Primary sources and we should instead be basing the article on what reliable authors have found from reading the primary sources (including ADM files, ships logs, personal accounts etc), not basing large chunks of the article directly from our own interpretation of these primary sources. Of the other sources, some are not sufficiently defined to allow the source to be verified (i.e. the Warship Profile - which I suspect say something more about what Exeter was doing between when it finished repairs and when it joined ABDA, and Middlebrook & Mahoney), do not appear to meet requirements for a reliable source (for example what makes [1] a reliable source - who is the author - are they a naval historian?), or don't actually add anything (the pacific wrecks references to Repulse and Prince of Wales being sunk, [2] (says nothing about Exeter), [3] also says nothing about Exeter. Content here is ultimately decided by consensus (i.e. the results of discussion, like the one we are having now.)Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect to the anonymous editing re USS Pope being sunk by B5n's, the reference used (and stated in 'Untitled' in the TALK section), Shores, Cull & Izawa, is in error as they are mistaken / their info out of date in this instance. I suggest you read later works by specialist Java Sea battle authors, for instance In The Highest Degree Tragic pages 414-415 (by Don Kehn, Jnr), etc and also the TROM of Ryujo, who launched the B5n's in question
KevinVD (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What is this reference - it has been used (in conjunction with a 1938 Bermuda newspaper) to cite a very large chunk of rather confused text. Enough detail needs to be given so it can be verified.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions to this article have resulted in the addition of a lot of undue detail (which arguably strays into the realm of trivia) - does the article really benefit from detailed account of rifle-shooting competitions? In addition massive quotes of sources have been added in citations - which appear to be quoting entire newspaper articles. This raises copyvio concerns (this is well beyond what would be allowable in fair use/fair dealing purposes, and certainly massively more than what is allowable under Wikipedia's rules for fair use of text. It is questionable whether the article still meets the requirement of a Good Article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree on the trivia and quoting. Suggest just removing all the recent additions. Some other cruiser articles have suffered likewise with excessive detail of their service while based at Bermuda Lyndaship (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree as well, most if not all of the added material should be removed. Looking through the editor's contribs, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, it seems they refuse to engage in discussion, which will only end one way. Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article and will revert further additions of a similar nature.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
And they've gone straight back to the same edits (and I've reverted). They appear to not be bothered about the conclusions of this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with these concerns, and the reversions. Kablammo (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
There are many concerns, going back for some time. This user's talk page tells a very clear story. But just as this user virtually never responds to any these issues, they have never been sanctioned in any way either. Unchecked, don't expect this behaviour to change. - wolf 00:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

HMS Exeter was fitted with Ply wood top sides and black holes painted to look like gun fire than sailed back to Plymouth ,this informing coms from crew  member 
@cp0 FJCurnow 86.179.8.238 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

N. P. Curnow 86.179.8.238 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)