Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 08:42, December 15, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 

[edit]

How long was Zuikaku out of action for retraining?

A confusing passage[edit]

Towards the end of this article appears this statement:

Zuikaku rolled over and sank at 14:14, taking Captain Kaizuka Takeo and 842 men with her. 862 men were rescued by Wakatsuki and Kuwa.

At first glance, I thought someone had editted this to mean that the carrier, her captain & 842 men went into the water, but 862 came out! Unless this ship was very undermanned, should one assume what is meant was that of the compliment of 1,660 (per the infobox near the top), 842 drowned & 862 were rescued? -- llywrch 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When a ship is said to "take [men] with her," that's an idiom that means the men were lost in the ship's sinking. --Tkynerd 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Looking at the picture showing the ship listing, I noticed the description says she lists to port (left), when she is clearly listing the starboard (right). I would change this, but can't at the moment since it is a featured article. Rifleman000 00:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless the picture is taken facing aft. PvtDeth 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be towards the stern; reference the antenna-like stuff visibe in it to the image at the top of the article. mdf 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The referenced picture definitely faces aft. Zuikaku had a starboard-side island and the picture is taken from a raised position, above the heads of the sailors on the flight deck. JB (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say?[edit]

With Zuikaku listing heavily to port, Ozawa shifted his flag to the light cruiser Ōyodo. The order to abandon ship was issued at 1358 and the naval ensign was lowered. Zuikaku rolled over and sank stern-first at 1414, taking Rear Admiral (promoted from captain ten days earlier) Kaizuka Takeo and 842 of her crew with her. 862 officers and men were rescued by the destroyers Wakatsuki and Kuwa.

Forgive me if this sounds dumb, but this seems to imply that 843 people went down, and 862 people were rescued. So something probably isn't right here. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There were 1704 people on the ship, plus the admiral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.24.131.236 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. I also missed the post up above where the someone else made this same mistake. While I understand "taking men with her" is an idiom, unfortunately I think this lends to an unclear passage, and I am going to attempt a slight rewrite of the passage so no one else makes a similar mistake. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)