Talk:Battle of Jutland

message: Within the official "History of the Great War - Naval Operations", volume 3 authored by Sir Julian S Corbett, Appendices F & G are casualty statistics of the British and German navies respectively. This has been published online by and can be accessed via the following link
http://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN3b.htm#F
This has been reproduced on page 338 of N J M (John) Campbell's  "Jutland, an Analysis of the Fighting" (Conway  Maritime Press, London, 1986)
and on the North East Medals website too. Keith H99 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Yes, "Director of Operations Division" is a title. But WP does not capitalize titles, in general. See MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case". In this usage, "Director of Operations Division" has not become part of Admiral Jackson's name, so it does not qualify for an exception. For that matter, it could well be argued that "Operations Division" is not a proper name, either. There are lots of operations divisions in lots of organizations, but for now I will settle for lower case for "director". Chris the speller yack 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, titles aren't capitalized in running text, but if you're referring to a specific individual, you do - for instance, one would not capitalize "Emmanuel Macron, the French president", but one would capitalize "President Emmanuel Macron". In this case, "Director of Operations Division, Rear Admiral Thomas Jackson", is an example of the latter, not the former. Moreover, if what you say were correct, we'd be decapitalizing the rank as well. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of titles 

message: Seeing as the infobox links directly to the outcome section, I though it would be worth adding a couple of introductory sentences.  Yhey state that both sides claimed victory and there is no clear consensus over who won.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getztashida (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to the Outcome section 

message: I would like to suggest adding the word "Inconclusive" in front of the existing listed result of the battle. Just giving people a hard redirect to an extended portion of the article is in my opinion not ideal, and may leave some who click on the article to just read the summary frustrated and/or unsatisfied. I would be in favor of either my previous suggestion, or a similar phrase, such as: "Inconclusive; Both sides claim victory" to either supplement or replace the existing "result". Something that gives the reader an idea of what happened, that doesn't just awkwardly redirect them to an article section, can definitely work as a "result". BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing "Result" from "See Outcome section" to "Inconclusive; See Outcome section" or some variant 

message: Since an editor seems to be under the erroneous impression that "even the British initially reported this as a German victory", here's the Admiralty's initial statement of 2 June. Readers may judge for themselves. 
On the afternoon of Wednesday, May 31, a naval engagement took place off the coast of Jutland.
The British ships on which the brunt of the fighting fell were the Battle Cruiser Fleet and some cruisers and light cruisers, supported by four fast battleships. Among these the losses were heavy.
The German Battle Fleet, aided by low visibility, avoided prolonged action with our main forces, and soon after these appeared on the scene the enemy returned to port, though not before receiving severe damage from our battleships.
The battle-cruisers Queen Mary, Indefatigable, Invincible, and the cruisers Defence and Black Prince were sunk.
The Warrior was disabled, and after being towed for some time had to be abandoned by her crew.
It is also known that the destroyers Tipperary, Turbulent, Fortune, Sparrowhawk, and Ardent were lost, and six others are not yet accounted for.
No British battleships or light cruisers were sunk.
The enemy's losses were serious.
At least one battle-cruiser was destroyed, and one severely damaged; one battleship reported sunk by our destroyers during a night attack; two light cruisers were disabled, and probably sunk.
The exact number of enemy destroyers disposed of during the action cannot be ascertained with any certainty, but it must have been large. "Great Naval Battle" (News). The Times. Saturday, 3 June, 1916. Issue 41184, col A, p. 8 —Simon Harley (Talk). 10:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The British public and press would have poured scorn over the material losses during the battle. The Admiralty with sombre acknowledgement is all that statement conveys, however. The idea that Britain would have declared a German Victory when in fact the Germans A) did not manage to achieve their goals, and B) did not manage to wane the supremacy of the Royal Navy, is easily dismissed - especially when one considers the role of war-time morale/propaganda. Jutland was a prime example of a nation at the top of its game being taught a lesson in complacency (see the radical changes to the then under construction HMS Hood was subjected to in the wake of the battle). Any such discussions regarding the shortcomings of British naval tactics would have been done behind closed doors, not in brash public announcements.--SinoDevonian (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Admiralty Communiqué