# Talk:Monarch-class coastal defense ship

How is [1] reliable? The author of the page doesn't seem to meet the definition of "expert" in WP:SPS per his resume. NW (Talk) 18:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm useing it because I've seen other articles with this site as a source. There really is not that much on these ships so I'm pretty much using everything that I can get..... I know that it may be a bit "scetchy" of a source but there are no other sources that deal with these ships as much.......--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Which other articles would those be? NW (Talk) 22:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
SMS Tegetthoff and SMS Prinz Eugen for example. Another thing is that many people considered Uboat.bet unreliable but user:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability proved them wrong. I understand that city of art may not be the best source but I have found a few books on google books that contains some sources on the Monarchs. I'll be adding those in before I move this article to the main space.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 23:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "Battleship" is how the Monarch class is described in reliable sources. Defining them as "coastal defense ships" based on their size seems to be WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Conway's calls them coast defense ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ahh. I stand corrected, then. Thanks for clearing that up.  - The Bushranger One ping only 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the information provided in the individual ship pages I would argue that the commissioned period should be 1895 to 1918 and not 1895-1920 as stated. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)