Talk:HMS Warspite (03)

message: I understood the Warspite to be a Dreadnought class battleship
:She was a super-dreadnought, but she was part of a particular class of super-dreadnoughts, the Queen Elizabeth-class. The name Dreadnough inspired from the first such all big gun battleship, HMS Dreadnought. And thus, irrespective of a specific class, all ships after her were became known as dreadnoughts, and ships before her were known as pre-dreadnoughts. SoLando 22:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dreadnought class?

message: Should there not be a section for her early action in the Mediterranean fighting the Italians, there are references about it later on and it is a little confusing?say1988 01:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes indeed. It was lacking some rather critical information... I have added it, although I think more could be said. I have also added a picture and switched some of the others around so that the formatting of the page is neater. Wiki-Ed 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is pretty good, but a lot more could be said. I'm sure there are still many tales to be told here, but we need to have written sources to cite. Wiki-Ed 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Med

message: The introduction to this article needs work - it should summarize the main points of the entire article, in particular touching upon the significance of the ship and its ultimate fate. However, this article appears, upon cursory examination, to be surely long enough, detailed enough, and with enough pictures, infoboxes, etc to be far beyond the class of a good "Start". But before it gets nominated to go any further, the intro needs work, and where are the references!? There are no sources listed here, let alone in-line citations. LordAmeth 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reassessed the article and it still needs some references, any references and then inline citations for it to be above even Start Class. Woodym555 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: The "general characteristics" are anything but general. Rather than trying to summarize it goes into excruciating detail. Please summarize this in the main article space rather than bloating the template.
Peter Isotalo 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox problems 

message: Back at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and  Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), I have suggested to move back to launch dates for older (e.g. pre-1945) British ships, as the pennant numbers are not necessarily unique, and certainly not well known. Since there was no opposition, I've modified the policy accordingly. It's now been up for 6 days with no comments. I would like to move the QE's back to a consistent disambig by launch date, in particular to comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Is there any strong opposition? --Stephan Schulz 02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested doing that some days ago on another page but I did get some objections. On reflection, I think pennant numbers may be the best way of listing ships so long as it's made clear in the text what the numbers actually refer to. I'm undecided about it though, and I don't think you should go making changes to policy without adequate discussion. Gatoclass 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making it absolutely clear in the text that in this case the number is the pennant number of the ship does not help a bit someone who is looking for information about British battleship 'Warspite' that participated in WWI and WWII, and after writing 'HMS Warspite' in the search box gets a longish list of 'HMS Warspite's - most with launch year (of which none looks really appropriate) and two with something else. I really don't think that even every other of those who know that some 'HMS Warspite' participated with distinction in both World Wars remembers its pennant number .. Kala-Eemeli (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the description of the WWII Warspite to make clear it is the most well known one. Feel free to add to it or expand it to explain it any better. This article is named in accordance with the naming conventions so you would need to get the conventions changed or get a discussion going to have this as an exception. Woody (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[HMS Warspite (1913)]] 

message: With all due respect to the authors, I feel that this article has a very dramatic style and is not in keeping with the Wikipedia encyclopaedic form []. For example, phrases such as "providing essential battleship support", "a bi-plane fragile in appearance", "when she poured heavy fire", "met her lamentable end", etc. are emotive and should be replaced by neutral prose that conveys only the facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.51.211 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Under the sub-topic "Mediterranean (1943-1944):"
   
   On 10 September, Warspite, which had battled the Italian Fleet during her time in the Mediterranean in 1940-41, led them, now surrendered to the Allies, into internment at Malta.
This sentence makes it sound like the Warspite somehow led the Italian Fleet and surrendered to the allies (?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.59.80 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As written the sentence does make sense but it is overly convoluted. I've rewritten it to remove all the separate clauses. Benea (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Sentence 

message: I was told by a long deceased Jutland veteran (HMS New Zealand)that as the Warspite turned in circles attracting so much German firepower that that small area of the North Sea was nicknamed "shell fire corner".AT Kunene (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warspite 

message: Strange view. I think this a good article and for any Briton, the length and detail seems appropriare for one of our greatest ever fighting ships. But then I am just an ordinary user and not one of the  Wiki bureaucrats so what do my views matter?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.228.250 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Excessive amount of intricate detail'? 

message: The infobox says that the Warspite was "[s]crapped 1950–57". The main text, particularly in under "Decommissioning", gives the distinct impression (which was my own recollection) that she sank in 1947 on the way to the breakers and that salvage attempts failed. Can someone more knowledgeable resolve the discrepancy? Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems they couldn't salavage her intact, so broke her up there  , a image search for "HMS Warspite wreck" shows some shots of her. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is explained clearly in the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but it's not clear to me. Take this sentence: "Aided by her compressor and two jet engines from an experimental aircraft the hulk was finally moved 130 feet closer to shore and by the summer of 1955 she disappeared from view." Does that mean she was scrapped in place? It's unclear. It might have disappeared from view for any number of reasons. Also, what was going on between 1955–1957? Finally, the article lede says the Warpsite was wrecked on the way to the scrap yard and says nothing about being scrapped in place afterwards. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate 

message: A photograph from the salvage could potentially improve the article as well as the reader's knowledge of marine salvage -thanks to 80.79.80.235 for the link.   Sphilbrick recommends use of the Interative Release Generator (IRG) -a prominent blue link on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates and I'll email the salvage company website with a request to upload a photo.  Regards JRPG (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of salvage?? 

message: The lead sentence of an article should feature a succinct declarative description of the most salient point on the subject. 
What was the Warspite? A Queen Elizabeth Class battleship. What is it secondarily (at best, in order of precedence of its relevance)? One of five ships of that class.
This principle - of what first; what else later - is fundamental to journalism, technical and academic writing, etc..
The sentence was originally edited to read "The Warspite was a s built for the Royal Navy during the early 1910s, one of five of its class."
This sentence structure was challenged by another user as "bad grammar".  It most certainly is not.  It is perfectly sound, no different than a simple compound declarative sentence such as, "John was first in his class, and second in the school." Or "John finished first in his heat, and third overall in the race."
In order to avert an edit war launched by that user I have modified the lead to simply read, "The Warspite was a  built for the Royal Navy during the early 1910s," with the matter of its standing in its class appended to the following sentence (as an introductory adverbial clause, supplanting the prior introductory adverbial clause, which was simply integrated into the balance of the compound sentence).
I hope this resolves the issues over the lead sentence of this article, both its focus and its grammar.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. You've just made another sentence read poorly instead. I see from your talk page that (a) other users have complained about your sentence construction previously and (b) you're familiar with BRD, so you also know that trying to circumvent policy this way isn't going to cut it. If you want to make a change and you get reverted you need to get consensus. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence