Talk:HMS Royal Oak (08)

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The proposed move was logical, not controversial, and not blocked, so I made the move myself. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as above. Tamino 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Much of the current text appears to have been copied from here, though it is not clear whether copyright is asserted on that work. I am intending to make a substantial expansion/rewrite of the article, so this potential issue will be removed in due course. — BillC talk 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All such material has now been removed. — BillC talk 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem?

message: This is a great article, and should definitely get GA status. Jolb 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article. 

message: It's an interesting read, and kudos to Bill who seems to have done most of it. I've assessed and passed this against 
the criteria.
:1. Well written - pass 
:2. Factually accurate and verifiable - pass 
:3. Broad in its coverage - pass 
:4. NPOV - pass 
:5. Stable - pass 
:6. Images - pass 
A couple of other things though - anything you can use from the London Gazette? Can you convert the references to  or other specialised templates - not the book references though? The auto peer review javascript program says:
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 tons, use 000 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 tons.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
Does Donitz's book have an ISBN, or can you link it to the same book on googlebooks? Bit more work and I think it would be a good featured article. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tackled the above points with the exception of external copyedit review. I will be passing the article out for peer review shortly. — BillC talk 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: There may be a way to present the Roll of Honour in a way that does not take up so much room, e.g. as a table of 5 or 6 columns.  Maybe another editor could help here. 81.156.63.69 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Roll of Honour is inappropriate here. An encyclopaedia article is a summary of a topic. This same list is presented in at least one of the web pages linked in the External Links section, and that is a much more appropriate means of doing so. You might like to present your idea at WikiProject Military history, and see if you get any support there for it.— BillC  talk 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an inappropriate addition to the article. What value does it add? How does it increase understanding of the topic? Why can't it simply exist as a page linked to amongst the rest of the external links? Please do not continue to re-add this content without first discussing it here. Carom 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. Please do not keep removing the list without consensus.  81.156.63.69 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider that Wikipedia is not a memorial and we do not list full casualty reports for other battles, engagements or conflicts. Also, please present some positive reasoning for the inclusion of this information. Carom 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An offer to undergo dispute resolution has been made. — BillC  talk 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll of Honour

message: I have NO IDEA what the copyright tag for this image should be, it doesn't fall into any of the category i can see.
I own the document and  i scanned it in, and its an original document from 1939.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincspoacher (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added image Fleetsignal.jp 

message: No mention in the article of the hundreds of boy sailors aged 14-17 who lost their lives. This was the greatest loss of young life at sea in any naval incident before or since, I gather from an article on the radio this morning marking the 70th anniversary. Also significant in that, following the incident, efforts were made to push a law through parliament that has subsequently prevented boys of this age from being placed on warships during wartime. I feel this information should be included in the main article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.130.44 (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant article, (think I read it every year it's in 'on this day') and a credit to everyone working on it.  If it helps there's some info on the subject above here and here, although not really any detail.  I also noticed this little piece of info that is certainly interesting if anyone working on this thought it worthy of including.  Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think the radio show alluded to is Radio 4's Today programme which can be listened to here (at 2hrs 43mins) - but only for the next week and if you're in the UK presumably. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashes have been placed inside the wreck on at least two occasions (one of which was the sister of a crewman who died). I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with something. —BillC talk 09:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: No probs, like I said it's a great article.  The radio show covers the last section of those edits (about Churchill), but doesn't give any figures.  I imagine the book they discuss while interviewing David Turner will be a good source when published. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Turner's book (Last Dawn: The Royal Oak tragedy at Scapa Flow) was published some time ago, and I have a copy. —BillC talk 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, got the impression from the first BBC link above that it wasn't out yet.   'Fraid I don't have any other links or refs to offer you, but like I said the Today Programme can help out and should be ok as a source.  Ranger Steve (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Sailors 

message: I've just noticed that a number of documents from The National Archives are referenced in the article, with "HMSO" given as the publisher.  Since these documents were never published, and one has to visit The National Archives at Kew to consult them, this must surely fall into WP:OR? --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know that they were not "published"?  Being shown as HMSO suggests that they were published even if only in a limited edition. I have more faith in the accuracy of a report from a contemporary Admiralty Board of Enquiry than a book written for profit many years later.  --jmb (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: I don't know if it is relevant but the White Ensign and Union flag flown by the Royal Oak at the surrender of the German fleet in WWI both hang in Strathlachlan Parish Church.  More information on Canmore.   --jmb (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Oak flags

message: Why there are two different coordinates in the voice? Which is correct? Furthermore the DFT site reports the wreck "sleeps" 58.55.848N 02.59.001W. I thought this one was the best references to resolve the problem, but if I put on this coord wiki gives me an error (paragraph "Tomba di guerra")... Does anybody could help me? --Bonty (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They are different because they have come from different sources. The differences between the values is quite small -- little larger than the length of a major warship. However, I will look into it and find the most reliable source I can for its location and use that throughout the article. The error were seeing when you tried to enter the DFT website location into  is because you giving the arcseconds value as 84, which is >=60. (I see you've now fixed it.) —BillC talk 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anyway, we (it. wiki) decide to add only the coord that appears in the DFT site. Bye --Bonty (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: I don't see any reference for this statement. Are you sure it's true?
In the book Portsmouth at War by Whitmarsh there is a contemporaneous photo (on page 27) of people examining the list of casualties outside the naval barracks.
Llezsoeg (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of casulaties only released after 40 years 

message: This article's been proposed as the Featured Article of the Day on the main page and it's not up to contemporary FA standards. There's barely any description of the ship to support the information in the infobox, the information on the interwar modernization(s) is sketchy, a few cites are missing, the bibliography needs to be overhauled for consistency and the sources need to be vetted. Not fond of the citation style, but I supposed I should respect the current format, although it seems awfully wordy with titles unnecessarily repeated. Anybody want to help to alleviate a formal FA Review?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll beef up the ship's description and provide cites for the infobox. Can you identify where you find the citations lacking elsewhere? —BillC talk 09:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The description's already been beefed up and is in the proper format. No cites for the infobox are needed as all that info is cited in the main body. I know where all the info is, I'm just not sure if I can find time to bring it up to standard in time for the anniversary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Article Review? 

message: This article gives 833 as the casualty figure and for many years this has been the widely accepted figure. Although his work has not been published yet, a local historian in Orkney has established to a reasonable level of certainty that the figure is 834. It seems that two names were omitted from, and one had been added in error to the original casualty list. Some recent publications and website entries have reflected this and the newly-erected memorial near the beach at Scapa Bay has the updated list and number. Just flagging this up. Will provide a more convincing and referenced case at some point, hopefully. Worth noting that the Royal Oak Survivor's Association and that here in Orkney the local branches of both the Royal British Legion and Royal Naval Association have accepted the new figure, but apart from the figure on the memorial it has not been widely publicised. Fine Hid (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting;  are you able to provide any details now? —BillC talk 11:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS ''Royal Oak'' casualty figure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on HMS Royal Oak (08). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.1775/changeNav/3533
*Attempted to fix sourcing for https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v18i1a02p_0001.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If people are wondering what TFA Protector Bot is doing here, I have tentatively penciled this in as Today's Featured Article for the 17th. It needs some work before it can run, though, particularly to the WWI section. Parsecboy has offered to look at it in a few days, and all help will be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at November, I've already got enough Milhist and ship articles, so I'm going to push Royal Oak off till its next anniversary, which is January 15. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tentative TFA 

message: I understand that the last survivor Arthur Smith, who was a Boy 1st Class at the time, has died in the last few days. I am in search of an obituary to back this up but have been unable to find anything yet. I will add to the article when I do. —BillC talk 22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last survivor dies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Royal Oak (08). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215063635/http://www.orcadian.co.uk/archive/2001/archive32.htm to http://www.orcadian.co.uk/archive/2001/archive32.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113072849/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6B743056-6C55-43B6-8539-77AD657C28B7/0/DLONews47_Aug06.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6B743056-6C55-43B6-8539-77AD657C28B7/0/DLONews47_Aug06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103104616/http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-47RoyalOak.htm to http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-47RoyalOak.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A month ago, I posted at the OMT talk page here about a source problem I identified that had been inserted accidentally when the refs were converted back in 2014 - I fixed it, but it occurs to me that I probably ought to mention the problem here, as there may be more errors that crept into the article at the same time, and there are likely people watching this page that aren't watching the OMT one. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source problem 

message: Can someone add a citation where its missing at the last sentence of the Special Operation P: the raid by U-47 section? Hog Farm  Bacon 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite needed 

message: I noticed that the page preview for this article is blank (devoid of words and only display the ship picture). Could someone fix this problem? Thanks. Jauhsekali (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a strange bug. I'm thinking it's some sort of conflict with , but I've no idea how to fix that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

text: This bug is being tracked on Phabricator. It doesn't look like there's a timeline for fixing it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, thank you. Also, I've seen some other pages has been affected by the bug as well. Jauhsekali (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank page preview 

message: Link? 61.68.84.23 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A diving rebreather reuses the diver's exhaled air by scrubbing the CO2 from it. It allows a diver to stay underwater for longer, but requires greater levels of skill and attention. I've placed a link in the article. —BillC talk 14:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also an article on Rebreather diving - I wonder if that would be a better link? Up to you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a ‘rebreather diver’, please?