Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
How long was Zuikaku out of action for retraining?
A confusing passage
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)
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)
What you say?
- 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.
- 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)