Talk:Japanese battleship Haruna

message: It might be good to put this into bulletpoints or a numbered list. It'd look more organized, and probably take up less space. LordAmeth 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanding officers 

message: After experimenting, I think this picture actually looks better in the infobox, because it's a more close up shot.  The problem is, however, that it shows the ship as a battlecruiser, not in its battleship configuration in which it spent most of its career. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Slightly annoying dilemma here... FWIW, I'd stay with the current one, because she is only known for her role in WWII as a BB, and she was laid up for most of her time as a BC; also, the 1934 photo is a good representative shot of the ship. Having said that, I do think that the 1915 photo needs to be added somewhere... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I replaced the 1915 trials picture with the close-up picture at Kobe on the opposite side of the page.  I think it gives a little better variety in picture styles.  If you or anyone else disagrees, no big deal. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox picture

message: *There's a role I think for American copyeditors with articles written in British English ... we have lots of American readers, not to mention American FAC reviewers :)  Nevertheless, I'm not at all confident copyediting a British English article for FAC, and I think we've got 2 other Americans and one Canadian looking at the article currently?  Then there's the fact that the War in the Pacific in general and this ship in particular have a stronger connection to the U.S. than to Britain.  I'd feel more comfortable working in American English but it's up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. American english away. I've just always written Canadian English (more for things like armour, colour, favourite, etc) out of habit. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I made a stupid assumption.  I'm comfortable with Canadian English (Chicago has been influential in Canada for a hundred years), but I agree, let's go American on this one.  Huah! - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: And when if not then?  Dr. Loosmark  17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was definitely when they were battlecruisers. With 8x14 main armament, they outgunned every other ship afloat, to the point where the British actually wanted to borrow Kongo from the Japanese for use in their Mediterranean Fleet at one point. They also used an all forward/aft configuration, which gave them much better firing arcs. By the time the interwar years came around, the Nagato, Ise and Fuso classes in the IJN were stronger (though not as fast, it must be noted). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aggressive. It saves me cost on medication once the FAC starts... Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm of the mindset that referring to it as the Second SJ War is the best way forward, given that that's the technical term for it. We called it the Great Patriotic War at the time, but now it's just the Eastern Front (World War II). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More copyediting 

message: May I ask what's the source for the 1920 turret explosion?  Dr. Loosmark  22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: combinedfleet. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  turret explosion 

message: The article states, "In 1941, separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships, with Harunas armor-piercing shells using black dye."  What was it that would be dyed, the shell casings?  The explosion plumes?  Why?  This needs some explanation, or at least a link. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dye 

message: According to this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/haruna.htm, Haruna is the 3rd battleship of Kongou-class, not the 4th.
Please consider this information. Also, if Haruna is the 3rd, then Kirishima would be the 4th battleship of Kongou-class.
My2ndAngelic (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fourth or the third ship of Kongou-class? 

message: SEems there is a confusion or conflict of information. Newspaper article dated 15 September 1942, The Evansville Press (Indiana), describing the sinking of Haruna in December 1941 off the Philippines. I saved the clipping in case it is needed for review of this article. Samuelsenwd (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different Haruna? 

message: Section '1926–1933: Reconstruction into battleship' contains this sentence: "She was refitted to accommodate three Type 90 Model 0 floatplanes." I cannot find any reference to such an aircraft. Another page from combinedfleet.com lists Reconnaissance Seaplanes as the Aichi E3A Navy Type 90-1; Nakajima E4N1/E4N3 Navy Type 90-2; E4N2-C Nakajima Navy Type 90-2-3; and the Kawanishi E5K1 Navy Type 90-3. The cited source actually says: 1 March 1924-31 July 1928: First Reconstruction: "A derrick boom is rigged to the superstructure starboard aft for one Yokosho E1Y3 Type 14 and one Nakajima E2N1 Type 15 floatplane." 
Section '1933–1941: Fast battleship' The same source as above says 1 August 1933: the official start of the Second Reconstruction: "Two Nakajima E4N2 Type 90 No. 2 Model 2 and one Kawanishi E7K Type 94 ("Alf") floatplanes are embarked." But the cited source, (Stille 2008) says there were three of either type. Thoughts, anyone? MinorProphet (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floatplanes