Talk:Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)

message: The final line of this section strikes as very POV in favor of Beaty - blaming the lack of a decisive victory on a subordinate's failure to disobey orders.  I'm removing it.--Lepeu1999 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle

message: Using Battle of Dogger Bank for the 1915 battle of the name causes confusion with the 1781 battle. Would be clearer to use the Battle of Dogger Bank page as a disambiguation page -- just as Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Ushant and Battle of Cape St. Vincent are disambiguation pages. JimmyTheOne 20:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support  JimmyTheOne 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK you have convinced me I'll withdraw my objection. Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add any additional comments
Copied from User talk:JimmyTheOne:
I should explain my thinking. I changed the Battle of Dogger Bank page into a disambiguation page for several reasons:
*The use of the Battle of Dogger Bank page for the 1915 battle was causing confusion for people seeking the 1781 battle. (See some of the talk pages leading to it, for examples, or check some of the old links). 
*Using the ambiguous name as the disambiguation page seems to be the convention in naval history articles on Wikipedia. Several other battles, such as the Battle of Cape St. Vincent, Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Cape Finisterre and Battle of Ushant are set up in this way, as are most ships (with HMS Victory as a good example of an exception to the rule).
*The two battles of Dogger Bank are of similar historical significance. Both involved squadrons detached from the main British fleet, were of little consequence in themselves but contained important tactical lessons. So neither battle is obviously more important or the most common meaning of the term.
*I was aware that the 1915 battle would lose its edit history, but I hoped that the fact that the history would still be available on the Battle of Dogger Bank page for anyone who really wanted it and that I had more than doubled the length of the article from 500 words to 1,200 by adding more details of the battle and the aftermath, as well as the order of battle and sources and making a couple of corrections, would compensate for that loss of convenience.
*I wasn't aware of the move option, which I now realize was my main error.  
I have taken your suggestion of submitting a request to the administrators. JimmyTheOne 21:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK you have convinced me I'll withdraw my objection. Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Added a few of the missing citations but there's a few more to find.Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations completeKeith-264 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The text currently says "In 1929, Julian Corbett, the naval official historian, recorded 792 men killed and 45 wounded out of the 1,026 crew on Blücher". Julian Corbett died in 1922 and was never 'the offical naval historian'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3A92:C200:41A0:557D:C0A9:E659 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a 2009 facsimile of the 1929 edition of a 1921 work (follow the link). If the author of the Naval official history isn't an official historian, what is he? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Julian Corbett

message: Hello all, I removed "obvious" from the sentence "Beatty tried to correct this obvious misunderstanding by ..." and was reverted per WP:OR. 
I suspect "obvious" is itself OR if the legacy section is any judge, and WP:OFCOURSE potentially comes into play as well. That said, I don't have access to Massie's Castles of Steel to see if the word or a synonym is in that source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check it with the citation tomorrow. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Massie doesn't use "obvious" so it in itself is OR. It's also interesting that the third signal, "Keep nearer the enemy—repeat the signal Admiral is now making" was hoisted within, at most, two minutes of the notorious misunderstood signals. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obvious misunderstanding" 

message: The caption under the film poster read:
:: 1916 advertisement for a viewing of panoramic footage of the Blücher sinking. Proceeds from the event went to orphans of artists and writers lost to the war.
However, this phrasing is misleading, as it seems to indicate that all the proceeds are going to orphans.  But according to the poster that was an exception.  The film is being shown daily, between the hours of 2:00 PM and 10:00 PM ("Ouvert de 14 hres à 22 hres"), for the price of 1 franc.  In addition, there is a one-time private showing ("vernissage") on June 15, which costs 5 francs and will benefit orphans.  
I've corrected the caption. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect caption on film poster