# Talk:Richelieu-class battleship

When I started copyediting the article, it was a mix of American and British English, insofar as such could be determined. I'm using American English in my copyedit; if this is objected to, let me know and I'll do my best to convert it to British English. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that much of the development sections of both articles cover much the same information. This seems like a recipe for unnecessary work; if one article gets improved, it'll be necessary to remember to do the other one (and any other places where it is duplicated.) Perhaps it would be better to keep the shared development history in one place. If neither of the class articles is ideal, perhaps another article dealing with the development or history of the French Navy? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with the material from the Richelieu class battleship article getting moved to somewhere else. I'm not aware of anyone doing any significant copyediting, etc on the other article, although I could be wrong. (Someone had earlier chosen to delete most of it from here on the basis that it was in the Dunkerque article, the problem with this being which one was in better shape...) Allens (talk | contribs) 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
BTW, do note that the best way to remove it from the Dunkerque article (and from here) is not going to be to simply wholescale remove it, but to put in {{Main}} pointing to the main article where the material is covered, followed by a summary. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article was tagged in at the beginning of March for being too long and too technical. Since then it has actually gotten bigger! (Then it was 115 kB;  now it's 123 kB). Can I suggest that we stop adding to this article and pay some serious attention to trimming, condensing, or otherwise reducing the amount of verbiage here? 
Is it is, the article is difficult to read, difficult to load, and difficult to copy-edit. WP:SIZE says 50-100 kB is plenty big enough, which suggests, for this, something like a 30% to 50% reduction. As a comparison, the verbiage on these two ships is more than we have on all five KGV battleships, each of which was a lot more active than these two. And the French WP article, which I would expect to be more detailed, is actually shorter. If we lost 40 kB from here it’d only be the same length, so what is there here that isn’t worth saying there? Xyl 54 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I’m actually not suggesting we merge the two ship articles to here (although I’m not sure how much difference it would make) but I am suggesting we take a hard look at these three articles with a view to substantially cutting back the overlap (and I wasn’t sure which template to use).
Most of the Background and Design information here is duplicated on the two ship pages; all that should be there is a summary ( maybe 5kB at most) and a main article link to here; while the History section here should be a summary of what is on the ship pages there, not a lengthy recap. 
As it is, these articles probably do qualify for a merge, on the grounds of Duplication and Overlap, so we need to do something. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While there is some overlap, there is so much detail in this article that I would perhaps reduce that, but not merge any articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose any merge, but the bulk of the technical detail should be moved to the class article, not the individual ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with User:Sturmvogel 66. The class article has to be centered on the design, the technical aspects, the relations with the preceding class, in this case the Dunkerque battleship class, the evolution in the subclasses, Richelieu and Jean Bart, Clemenceau and Gascogne, perhaps the following (cancelled), Alsace battleship class, the comparison with the similar-sized contemporary battleships, and each battleship articles have to be centered on the specific history of the warships, the battle of Dakar and the 1944-45 Indian Ocean campaign of Richelieu, the battle of Casablanca, and the late completion for Jean Bart.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it would be worth considering what can be trimmed from this article, and what from the two ship articles, in order to reduce the overlap. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Has an incredible amount of detail, but I'm seeing some problems in this article.  There is way too much discussion of other vessels in this lengthy work, particularly the Dunkerque and German pocket battleships.  Summarizing would really help!  Currently reads more like a thesis than an encyclopedia article.  I suspect that ~90% of readers will never get to the Richelieu class for all the pages of introductory material about other ship classes. 
Also, why are later considered designs discussed at length?  Clemenceau?  Gascogne?  They aren't the same class (actually two additional classes), so should only have a cursory mention here, rather than an exposition on their design considerations.  Want to trim the article? Start in those sections.  They might be lumped into a separate wiki page for later classes of French BB's.  The material looks good, but it is in the wrong article.  
I've already noticed some problems with suspect technical items (wrong thickness for Iowa class turret armor for example...also that greater inclination of the Iowa belt armor is not mentioned either.)  I also didn't find discussion of the dispersion issue with the guns of this French BB class.  IIRC the guns shared the Italian BB problem of being too close to one another and suffering from "wake effect."  This was later addressed with delay coils. Red Harvest (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

From my observation, the simplest solution to this problem of size, length and detail (which has been brought up several other times as mentioned in this this talk page) would be to cut of more detailed swathes of the article and give the Clemenceau and Gascogne their own articles. The main class article is so detailed that currently it would surely dissuade any contributor from attempting independent articles on the two ships. Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Both Richelieu and Jean Bart especially were capable of more than 32 knots. The table lists 30 knots as their speed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.102.218 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 

Please provide a source for this. I've just reverted your unsourced change to the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Richelieu exceeded 32 knots during her sea trials on 13 June 1940, according to Jordan and Dumas, French Battleships 1922–1956, p. 118--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I've undone my reversion and cited your reference. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Much of the article was a direct copy of text from Jordan & Dumas, and as such, when the rewrite is complete, most of the revisions of the article's history will have to be deleted to remove the copyright violations. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

“ she was slated to be launched in 1941, with completion projected for late 1943”
?? How do you launch a ship two years before completion? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:41FF:6EA6:17AE:890E (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's called fitting out. In general, the superstructure is erected after launching, and all of the equipment, armament, etc. is installed after launching. The point is to clear the slipway as soon as possible so other ships can be built. Parsecboy (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

French battleship Richelieu colorized.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The article describes the armor belt that was above the water line as "3.75 in (95 mm)" surely that isn't correct? should that be 3.75m (12.3 ft)? the article says the armor belt is 6.25 m (20.5 ft) tall and the diagram shows the waterline as roughly in the middle of the belt. 142.113.191.73 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, must've been a typo. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)