Talk:7th Cruiser Squadron

message: I’ve moved the reference to "live bait" down the page. It’s barely notable; it stems from an off-the-cuff comment by Keyes to illustrate the danger they were in, but is misleading in the heading. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this used to be the title of the article, because all the reference books Ive seen refer tto the squadron using this name. It may have been a remark by keyes, but it has stuck. But the descriptions I read suggested the name was widely in use. Sandpiper (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it; but I objected to LBS because it’s a flippant title for an action that saw 1400 men die. And "Action of..." is a common enough format. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "live bait" comment 

message: I’ve also removed this from the introduction
“and the old cruisers of the Cressy class were instructed to steam slowly in line abreast formation.”
And this
“unescorted by destroyers and without taking avoiding tactics against submarines.”
And this
“mostly part-time men from the Royal Naval Reserve rather than regular sailors,”
They read like excuses; the place for them is in the discussion of the sinking of the three cruisers. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, as my comments above and below: this is because this article started as a description of the sinkings, and as far as I remember, these snippets come from sources describing the events. If you do recreate the article simply about the sinkings (which I think Harlsbottom expanded into this one), that introduction is likely to want to go back. Sandpiper (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These points are covered in the "Action..." article now. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  excuses 

message: I’m planning to move the passage on the sinkings to its own page, probably  Action of 22 September 1914, and leave a summary. This page is on the Squadron; the sinking is a single incident (albeit a pretty significant one!) in the squadrons service history. It shouldn't dominate the article. Are there any objections? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to that.  I think I suggested something of the sort in discussion with User:Sandpiper a long while back on my tlak page, along the lines of Sinking of Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue (which is, after all what people think of in relation to this topic), although if there is a guideline to follow, then by all means make it Action of 22 September 1914. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 18:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the article began as a description of the ships sinking, so that is rather coming full circle. Re your comment above, I fancy something like 'sinking of the live bait squadron' would be a rather more identifiable name. It started under the title 'Live Bait Squadron'.  The most important significance at the time was not the lost naval capacity, but the incompetence in placing them at risk and their sheer vulnerability, hence 'live bait' as a title rather summed this up. I didn't invent it, but it was a very eye catching title and I do like it. I would suggest you look at some back versions of the page when it was more apparently about the sinkings, eg [] The logic at the time seemed to be that almost all there was to say about the squadron belonged in a good article about the sinkings, so the two would tend to be identical. Which is not to say I am against separating them and letting them grow apart, if there is more material specifically about the squadron generally.  Also see overlap with articles on the ships sunk, eg HMS Aboukir (1900). Sandpiper (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  move? 

message: It seems a contradiction that this article says that in 1940 the Squadron was part of the Northern Patrol in the North Sea but the HMS Ajax article says the ship was allocated to the selfsame squadron for Mediterranean service and fought the Battle of Cape Passero (1940) south of Sicily (also mentioned in this article). Also, this article says that the squadron was reformed on 18 July 1940 but the Northern Patrol article says the squadron served in it from September to December 1939. Perhaps these apparent anomalies could be resolved. Jontel (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII area and period of operation