# Talk:Japanese battleship Mikasa

Donutman? It looks like vandailsm to me so i reverted it. Anybody want to confirm/deny? -Copysan 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mikasa has been designated as one of the "Three Great Historical Warships of the World", together with Victory in Portsmouth, UK, and Constitution in Boston, USA." <-- By whom? Unless some sort of authority is cited, this isn't very helpful. -LtNOWIS 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I took this information from the touristic brochure given at the entrance of the Mikasa. I do not have other sources however. Regards. PHG 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
could someone put an animation of how the guns work on the mikasa, as the current drwaing is very confusing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyhawk (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 

The "50% stronger" statement is at odds with the article relating to Krupp armour, which states that testing showed 10.2" of Krupp armour had resistance to penetration equal to 12" of Harvey (presumably depending on shell construction) So Krupp armour is equal to a 15-20% greater thickness of Harvey - nowhere close to 50%! 
Article updated in accordance with this information.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Japanese battleship Mikasa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121114113341/http://www.pacificwarmuseum.org/FleetAdmiralNimitz.asp to http://www.pacificwarmuseum.org/FleetAdmiralNimitz.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is the page called "Japanese battleship Mikasa" and not just "Mikasa (battleship)" ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:SHIPNAME#Ships from navies without ship prefixes  — sbb (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So it should be "Japanese battleship Mikasa" with the name in italics. -- Beardo (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Correct, which it is. You can't use wikitext markup (double single-quote marks) to make an article title stylized. In the case of most ship articles, title italicization is made because of using the {{infobox ship begin}} template.  — sbb (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops - sorry. I had just looked at the top here and assumed that the formatting would have carried over, I do have a lot to learn ! -- Beardo (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I have got this wrong but according to Navypedia this ship was constructed by Armstrong, Whitworth and not by Vickers
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap bb mikasa.htm
I note one of the references #1 refers to Warships for Export: Armstrong Warships 1867–1927
203.59.188.248 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And that's another reason not to trust Navypedia. She was not built by Armstrong. The cite from the Armstrong book was in reference to the construction program that included Mikasa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
OK thank you for the clarification
118.211.49.254 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies I have done some further research and there seems to be some ambiguity I would appreciate further discussion
203.59.188.248 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Would someone please explain why Mikasa, in its current state, is not a Ship of Theseus?
24.136.33.86 (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Claiming it as such without secondary sourcing falls under WP:OR. Wikipedia uses claims made by reliable secondary sources, not the personal conjecture of individual editors. Loafiewa (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no original research involved. It is a simple statement of obvious fact, supported by the article itself. So please stop mindlessly spouting policy and explain why IJN Mikasa is not a Ship of Theseus but the USS Constitution and HMS Victory, are. If you are not familiar with the concept, please read the WP article on it first. ```` 24.136.33.86 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented." Loafiewa (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
How about this, then, from the article itself at the end of the Preservation section:
"Unfortunately, all the guns and turrets on Mikasa are replicas. Almost all of the equipment and superstructure on Mikasa today are replicas or equipment taken from the two retired South American dreadnought battleships listed above.(https://www.wayfarerdaves.com/?p=2099 . Retrieved 13 September 2023)." 24.136.33.86 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
That passage makes no mention of the Ship of Theseus. Loafiewa (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain, what are "barbette hoods"? Is it a "roof" or "deck"? MadCAD (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)