Jump to content

Talk:HMAS AE1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwheaton (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 31 December 2017 (→‎Wreck discovered at 300 m, vs max safe depth of 200 feet: ?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article Naming

It may be technically incorrect to call the Article HMAS AE1, due to the fact that when the sub was in action it was not called this. But I think this is a far better name than "Australian Submarine AE1", and the HMAS tag is what the RAN now refers to the sub as, as seen in their history page (in the references on the article). Nomadtales 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which is why I moved the article from "Australian Submarine AE1", which is now a redirect. Convention on Wikipedia appears to be (to me) that ship designations and flags are 'retconned' to cover ships that would be covered by them if they entered service tomorrow. -- saberwyn 11:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ships complement

The article says the ships complement being "34 officers". This is highly unlikely. 34 men likely, but perhaps only 3-4 officers. Confirmation/correction requested on the crew composition.2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article says "34 officers and ratings", not just 34 officers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

The 2007 discovery has been identified as a rock!! Im going to add this to the section

OK good, but do you have a reference, to back this up? Any online news article would be good. Nomadtales 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I want a source on this one, {{fact}} tagged. -- saberwyn 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging recent news article

  • Whyte, Sarah; Barlass, Tim (29 January 2012). "Race to solve the AE1 mystery". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 31 January 2012.

Noting this news article (which is about two planned, competing searches for the submarine) for future use in expanding the article. -- saberwyn 05:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source

http://museum.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/No.%20247%20AE1%20Rabaul%202009.pdf - Western Australian Museum report about a 2009 search for AE1. -- saberwyn 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS AE1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page refresh

This page needs a bit of a spring clean. Headings are out of whack and some of the citations require hyperlinks. Everything currently under the heading "Citations" should be under the heading "References" and everything currently under "References" should be under the heading "Further reading". The citations could be formatted using Template:Reflist & template:R to tidy up the code. Thoughts? 8==8 Boneso (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Boneso, which headings are out of whack (or are you just referring to the citations/headings)? Re the citations/references headings, I'm not so sure about a straight switch. This isn't a citation style I use, but some of the entries in the References are the long form of entries in the Citations section so it would need more than just a heading change (more like a merge and then split), I think. Probably best to ping Saberwyn (who I believe was a main contributor earlier in the article's development), although they may not be active anymore. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The headings are fine according to MOS:APPENDIX; Lvl 2 for the citations and references and Lvl 3 for the various types of references. It's not a style that I use myself, but I used the existing style when I expanded it a few years ago. I do agree that the long form refs recently added do need to be moved to the article subsection and replaced with short form ones matching the existing style. But it's not a priority for me, so feel free to do that yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sturm, I can try to make it consistent if you think that best. The current style is a bit different to what I'm used, so I will have to think about how to achieve it, but it is certainly doable. I wouldn't want to do it, though, if there are concerns that it isn't a workable style. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's workable; I don't like it because I'm all about doing just enough to allow the reader identify the work being cited which generally means "author, page #" and I really don't see any utility in dividing references by type. The article's not far off GA status and redoing the long-form refs would be one of the things that would help to get it there once it stabilizes a bit after all the info from its discovery is absorbed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Its a a great page that I won't visit too often so I don't want to upset the regular editors. I've never seen a page laid out this way and I thought there was a bit of doubling up between the references and citations. I understand why it is done that way - wiki markup is a mess; my suggestion would certainly help to tidy it up. The disadvantage of my method is that if an editor uses the "cite" option from the menu, the citations is placed inline and we end up with a mixture of different coding styles which is worse. I keep a watchful eye on the pages that I have written/re-written and fix any coding issues as they arise, but I won't be doing it with this page. Anyway, I might play with links in the citations when I get a spare few minutes over the next few days. If there is a consensus to make any changes I have suggested, I'm willing to make those changes. Its been a pleasure. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck discovered at 300 m, vs max safe depth of 200 feet:  ?

This is 200 feet after new bulkheads added, so it is roughly 990 feet vs 200 feet, over a factor of 5X difference. Of course it could have sprung an uncontrollable leak above 200', and then settled to below 200' before breakup. I'm wondering though if there might be a units conversion overlooked, eg, 300 feet instead of 300 meters. Wwheaton (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMAS_AE1&oldid=817878685"