Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin

message: It is usually written in simplified form Потемкин in Russia (instead of Потёмкин), but it is still pronounced in English "Potyomkin", not "Potyemkin" (in fact, it is pronounced "Patyomkin" because of unstressed "o") Pibwl 23:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Russian battleship Potemkin and Battleship Potemkin uprising are both integral to the history of the battleship.  The content of this article is largely duplicated in the other anyway.  They ought to be merged under the name of the ship. —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
=== Support ===
# (nominator) —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
# Support shoy 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: # (nominator) —Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
# Support shoy 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: It had a notable career in ww1 clashing with Goeben (as a part of a squadron) several times, each time forcing it to retire.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.118.206 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW1 career 

message: The timeline section to some extent contradicts the origins section.  The timeline section is also complete uncited.  Please can someone add proper citations to reliable sources. (Communist propaganda films do not count as reliable sources.)  If the timeline section cannot be provided with citations to reliable sources, it will be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline section

message: This is clearly an error.  The muzzle velocity on naval guns of this sort is nowhere near the claimed 9160 fps.  The 2792 claimed as "meters per second" might be plausible as "feet per second."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.187.149 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main armament muzzle velocity "9,160 ft/s (2,792 m/s)"? 

message: As of this version from 2006 the article was stable and a non-stub in British English. --John (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engvar 

message: The Soviet SSBN appear in "The Spy Who Loved Me" carrys the name Potemkin. --95.222.191.133 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: I'm not well-versed in MILHIST conventions, so ignore at will:
* "All dates used in this article are New Style" this note seems to be irrelevant.
**Imperial Russia didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar reforms, so they were about 10 days behind the calendar used in the west.
* Why is the Goeben referred to as Yavuz Sultan Selim in the lede but never elsewhere? Confusing easter egg etc. Suggest using Ottoman name during description of battle but state somewhere that this is the renamed Goeben.
**Excellent catch; I've switched every reference over to the Turkish name.
* "They were intercepted by the German battlecruiser" the ship is no longer German.
**Indeed.
* Is there a WP:MOS rule about nbsp between dates and months e.g. 2  October? I see nbsps before other units of measurement
**No.
* "Panteleimon and the other Russian pre-dreadnoughts" can't use "the" without previous mention, so change "the" to the specific number instead.
**Reworded this bit, see if it's clearer for you.
* Why aren't the other instances of renaming the ship mentioned in the lede?
**Too much detail, IMO, for the lede.
* "after the first dreadnought entered service" wl dreadnought (I didn't because there may be a specific wl), and explain that dreadnoughts supplanted/superseded (or whatever the correct military term is) the pre-dreadnought shis en masse so that's why Potemkin was relegated to secondary roles...perhaps say the dreadnoughts became the capital ships?
**See how it reads now.
* "The new design combined shorter guns with" I don't know how much detail is needed here but certainly need concrete comparison of Potemkin's with Peresvet's. Comparison should offer concrete details re why the former's guns were more appropriate.... I put "shorter guns" just as a placeholder; you need "[detail] guns with range [detail]" or whatever specific details the designers thought were more appropriate. 
**Reworked this as well.
* Lose the final blockquote, add that the film is considered a classic of propaganda, and if you're in a particulalry expansive mood, you might even add that it was a favorite of Goebbels who constantly referred to it and exhorted movie-makers to emulate it
**OK, lemme find see if I can find a cite for that statement.
***I'm not so sure about adding a bit about the film as you suggested above, as the whole legacy section is tied to the ship's role in the movie and the mutiny's effect on later history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The transliteration that you're trying to use is not that used in any of my sources. What's yours?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: The infobox is for the legal owners of the ship, neither of which were the mutineers or the Romanians. Both of them had de facto control, not de jure ownership, which remained with the Russian Empire throughout. The mutineers had no legal authority to transfer ownership to the Romanians, who only hoisted their flag as a matter of punctilio before returning it to the actual owners.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the Romanian career section of the infobox, for the reasons given above. I've also deleted your malformed citations as Bascomb has better and more thorough information. I've added more information on the hoisting of the Romanian flag and their taking possession the ship so I hope this satisfies you. I need to dig up a copy of the Warship International article to verify that Elisabeta actually fired blanck rounds at Potemkin, but I remain unconvinced that her actions warrant a separate article and will likely send that to WP:AfD. What you should do is add that bit to the article on the cruiser, but you need a page number when you do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship owners 

message: This sentence in the lead is ludicrous. The first dreadnought entered service in 1906 (HMS Dreadnought (1906). I presume "the first Russian dreadnought" is what was meant, and have edited the article accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The ship was relegated to secondary roles after the first dreadnought battleship entered service in late 1915" 

message: Nowhere in the article does it state that the mutiny had any direct connection to the 1905 Russian Revolution. The naval mutinies had some of the same underlying causes, but had no significant effect on events in St Petersburg.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to the 1905 Revolution 

message: Hey Sturm, I know you saw my small edits on this page but do you mind to address these comments.
* "attacked by the Ottoman battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim" This is a sea of blue.
* "her boilers to coal firing at a cost of 20,000 rubles" I think we should link this "rubles" to the "Imperial ruble (14th century – 1917)" section of that article.
* In the image "File:Panteleimon1906-1910.jpg" the word circa needs a circa template.
* I see that the article uses a lot of the word "feet" here. Per MOS:UNITNAMES we should write short written units fully a few times. So it should be reduced.
* I think the Crimea needs the word "Peninsula" at first mentions in the lead and the body.
* Both the February Revolution and the October Revolution are misleading. You already told put that all dates are used as New Style but they are not. So if someone clicks on one of them then they see it actually was in March or November. I think a note or so or a little bit of explanations is needed?
* I believe that the section "Mutiny" has three lines which are sandwiched per MOS:SANDWICHING. Could you move the right images a little bit lower?
* Could you also merge the last line of the section "Legacy" into the last paragraph?
* "ship and ran her aground in Odessa harbour" Isn't the word "harbour" not capitalised because it's part of the proper noun?
These are all of them. Normally I'd do them myself but because some are bigger issues like the images and because my English isn't one of the best I'd better ask those to you and then we can discuss them before starting an edit war. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, shit, son, you done given me a lot to think about here! Especially about abbreviating units. I tend to spell most of them out each time, probably as a legacy of contests where I sometimes needed to scratch for every letter to make minimum length requirements. Lemme finish with the Bouvines and I'll start implementing your suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Small MOS issues