# Talk:Italian battleship Giulio Cesare

This page renders if ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_battleship_Novorossiisk ' is the url.  While this may be correct, it looks odd to get an Italian page when expecting a Russian one.  My first impression was one of an error and was inclined to dismiss the information.

Same boat. Don't see the problem. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a leftover from the old URL, still shows "For other ships of the same name, see Soviet aircraft carrier Novorossiysk." Perhaps something along the lines of "Not to be confused with ..." would be more appropriate. Diego bf109 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NC-S uses this ship as an example of appropriate treatment of a ship whose navy doesn't use ship prefixes, but the ship prefix page claims that the Kingdom of Italy did use prefixes (RN for regia nave, "royal ship") and that not using prefixes is an innovation of the modern Italian navy. Which is correct? & if the former, could sb please annotate the Kingdom of Italy entry on the ship prefix page? -LlywelynII (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Obv, if the latter is the case (as suggested by it:Regia Nave), then the page should be moved to RN Giulio Cesare & the WP:NC-S perhaps emended. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have put a bit of info about Punta Stilo; there's many things to do; Cesare also partecipated to other major actions, the Battle of Capo Teulada and the Naval Bombardment of Genoa of 1941 (Operation Grog) among others, prior of the acknowledgment of the obsolescence, The real issue I have is the verifiability because many sources are in Italian and only in print. dott.Piergiorgio 02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rated the article and intend to improve the style of the article while not touching the most of the content.  I also plan to include some information on the sinking.  --Harlsbottom 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the text regarding the fatal explosion of the battleship (Explosion section). The section is written according to evidence published more than eight years ago, which not only was not refuted since then, but is also in line with recent (July 2013) statement by a former member of Decima Flottiglia MAS.
The size of this section is adequate to the event of explosion, which itself made the battleship more well-known. 2601:9:1B80:281:8158:26E1:A266:CC9D (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The sabotage theory is already adequately covered with links to all of your evidence, so don't bother repeating the link here because it's still in the article. But the official conclusion is the most likely explanation and gets the most prominent coverage. Exactly the same as given in my sources. Even the English-language biography of Borghese doesn't definitively claim that Decima MAS sank the ship, but only mentions that some former members claimed to have done it with zero supporting evidence. No documents, no photos, nothing other than empty bar room words. And given that we now know about the Gladio program, claiming some level of NATO-related secrecy is not reasonable. Furthermore the level of detail you provided was far in excess of any reasonable account of the sabotage, exceeding the length of the ship's entire history in Italian service and unbalances the entire article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The text states that Guilio Cesare was unsuccessfully attacked  in the Gulf of Taranto by U-596 in early March 1944, with a citation from Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea.
Yet the next sentence says she was interned at Malta in September 1943 and remained there until June 1944. There's also nothing about this on the U-596 page. So, which is it? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably a misidentification by the sub.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)