Talk:Ise-class battleship
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ise-class battleship Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell
Content
Question: How encyclopaedic should this article be? I'm using as my main reference M. J. Whiteley's excellent Battleships of Wolrd War Two: an International Encyclopaedia and don't want to risk simply copying out his work verbatim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.15.216 (talk • contribs)
- Compare with other articles in Category:Ship classes to see the level of detail that other editors have worked to. My personal opinion is that big tables of statistics are only interesting to the most specialist audience, and it is reasonable to expect this audience to refer to specialist reference works. For a general audience, it's more important to describe things in a more qualitiative way, e.g. what is interesting about the design of these ships? How did they differ from other contemporary or earlier designs? How did the design affect their use? I think that Iron Duke class battleship is an example of an article with a good level of detail. However, if you think information is valuable and interesting, please go ahead and add it. Gdr 13:49, 2005 May 6 (UTC) P.S. Have you considered creating an account?
Lack of aircraft?
I'm just curious about the part where it says they never saw combat operations due to the lack of aircraft. Most things I've read about Japanese aircraft (a special interest of mine) mention how many carrier aircraft (such as the Yokosuka D4Y in the article) lost much effectiveness towards the end of the war because most of the ships intended to carry them were lost. Thus they were forced to operate from land bases, to the detriment of performance. Lack of pilots was an issue, but they found enough young and poorly trained pilots to carry on operations. So I'm curious why it says they lacked planes when most places say the planes lacked ships. I got here from the article on Operation Kita, which says they were being used in 1945 to bring supplies from Singapore to Japan, but they were sent out in 1944, without knowledge that they were going to be given this task. All I can think is that in 1944, when they embarked, there were still enough carriers to demand all the available aircraft and so they sailed without any. Later, when the aircraft were operating from land for a lack of carriers, they were already in Singapore and thus were too far away to be of any use?.45Colt 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)
Wrong ship name in photo caption?
The caption list the ship as Hyuga, but the images says it's the battleship-carrier Ise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.84.191 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
general information
There a some different numbers i don´t understand. Infobox says Bulkheads: 199–224 mm. But in the text it is 102 to 203 mm The same with the deck. At the infobox 85 mm and in the text its 34 to 55 mm. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)