Talk:HNLMS Gelderland (1898): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:36, 9 August 2010

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Ships Stub‑class

	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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Commission date

German Wiki states she was commissioned on 15, not 16, July 1900. Which date is correct? Drutt (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the page

The ship was called Hr.Ms. Gelderland (in English HNLMS Gelderland) and not HNLMS De Gelderland. The latter is a faulty compound born from use of ship's names without the H(NL)MS part, like in English one can refer to HMS Hood and the Hood in an article. I suggest that the title of the page be corrected to HNLMS Gelderland as has already been done in the article text. (Paaskynen (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That makes sense, and is backed up e.g. here, where "HNLMS Gelderland" is listed, and "de" occurs only rarely in HNLMS ships' names; and Dutch WP has "Hr. Ms. Gelderland". "HNLMS de Gelderland" seems to occur only in WP mirrors, e.g. here and here. I shall move the page in a few days, if no objections. Nortonius (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC) (later:) What am I saying - this aspect hasn't received attention in over a year, I'll probably move it by the end of the day, unless someone intervenes, or beats me to it![reply]

I'm confused

"The Niobe was raised and scrapped in 1953." This sentence appears at the end of the article and yet the picture is captioned "The wreck of Niobe in Kotka". I can only assume the photograph was taken before 1953. Would a sunken ship be raised only to be scrapped, (perhaps as part of the post-war clear-up)? I think a bit of knowledgable revision is required to make things a bit clearer.
RASAM (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug around a bit, including looking at the Russian EL, as a result of which I'd point you to the phrase "shallow grave" in the existing text, and say your assumptions are correct. However, I've adjusted the text slightly, to indicate why you can see a photo of the "wreck", though apparently it was only "raised" in 1953 - hopefully that's a bit clearer now. To be honest, though, and particularly given that the ship didn't need raising far, the idea that it was raised and then scrapped doesn't seem an issue to me - many tons of useful scrap, would cost a fortune to repair, obsolete in WWII anyway, major hazard to shipping inside a harbour, etc... And, compare what happened to the Tirpitz. BTW, prior to this, I have had no connection with the article. Nortonius (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing bombs?!

Sources please! Nortonius (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]