Talk:List of battleships of Japan

message: Should be good enough for now.
I'm not sure whether all the ships should have 'IJN' designation infront.
Revth 06:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No IJN - it's been discussed before, and it seems nobody has turned up any evidence that it was an official ship prefix. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships for what we have in the way of common standards. Stan 13:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: List of Japanese steam battleships and List of battleships of Japan are almost exact forks of one another. The former is more complete and the latter has a shorter title, so I suggest merging to here. Essentially the [[Imperial Japanese Navy] only existed from 1860 (perhaps) to 1945, so all its battleships were steam-propelled; and Japan didn't have battleships before or after that period.... one article is therefore totally redundant. Unless anyone objects I'll merge them shortly. The Land (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. LordAmeth (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Where did the names for BB11 and BB12 come from (Suraga and Omi)?  I have never seen any names listed for those ships.  --  Imperator3733 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kii-class names 

message: I've removed the German ships, as including them here gives the average reader the false impression that they were put into service with the Japanese fleet, which is not the case. I also don't know why  was included at all, since she was never transferred to the Japanese Navy; the Turks retained her until they broke up her for scrap in the 1950s. So not only was she never under Japanese control, the article had her disposal wrong by a couple of decades. Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German ships 

message: This article is going to rather large - we're over 40kb and only 3 of 19 sections are completed. We might have to split the list between pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts. Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I'd prefer not to. I'm gonna need a couple more introductory paragraphs to cover the later dreadnoughts and then can resume work on the individual classes at a paragraph or two apiece. Let's see how it goes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might need to split 

message: Everyone,
I'm creating this section to discuss the citations of the list and the format being applied. I changed all of them over to sfn-style and then forgot that WP:CITE exists. In order to avoid a fait accompli, I'd like to open up discussion to the rest of the community to see if we can come up with a consensus regarding what citation style we will use in the list. I have no problem reverting all of my edits back to the previous citation style if that is what the consensus is, and likewise if that is the conclusion we have then I apologize in advance for any inconvenience my editing may have had on others. If we do choose to keep the style I implemented, the good news is that all of the citation work for the article is complete (for now).
--White Shadows New and improved!
:So I had said that I would make no more edits here, but then I blanked the page because I mistook it for a nearly-identical sandbox I had of it. So I'll leave my two cents here. SFN / Harvard citation format is superior in every way to standard ref-tags. A disclaimer I feel I need to make is that I made the argument that the switch to sfn was necessary because the reader might be confused and would have an easier time tracing a source with the same author and date as another. What I didn't account for, in my own pigheaded fashion, is that you could do what I did in ref-tag to undo this. But I still think that doesn't matter. We're still throwing ten billion references at the reader from at least a dozen books alone. Ref-tags are well and good for articles with a dozen or fewer books and other references, but they don't link and I don't like that. And when it comes to working with lots of references/sources, as was the case for me at Ludwigsburg Palace because of the method that I conducted my research with (google), I am biased to a fault in favor of sfnrefs. –Vami_IV✠ 00:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My general perspective is, if someone is willing to do the work to change the refs over, and they're going to be the ones writing the article (or list, in this case), then it shouldn't be an issue. I'm not planning on coming back to work on this list at any point in the near term, and I doubt Sturm is, so if Vami and WS want to switch them over and finish the list, go ahead and do it. A completed list with SFN is better than an unfinished list with "unadulterated" refs. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If y'all can take it all the way to FL, I'm not going to fuss any further about this as I don't know how much time I'm going to have in the near future to finish this and better completed than not for OMT. But I will say this, WP:CITE is written to avoid these sorts of things, so, in the future, do not change existing, consistently formatted cites in articles to your preferred format, no matter how superior you believe your preferred format is. I've used harv, sfn, and other formats myself when editing existing articles that used those formats throughout, no matter how much it pained me to do so, so y'all need to learn to do the same lest y'all have this little contretemps over and over, with the consequent wasting of time as hard work gets reverted. Honestly, it probably only matters for articles going for GA and above, but it can happen at any time and y'all wouldn't have a leg to stand on when reverted. I'm not trying to be a dick, but people can get surprisingly invested in their format, especially if they figure on maintaining the article long-term, just as much as Vami IV prefers sfn over any others. So don't change formats!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Format 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion