Talk:Amagi-class battlecruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Amagi-class battlecruiser is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Amagi-class battlecruiser is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of Japan series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 9, 2009.
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated FA-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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.


Congratulations for featuring an article with an incorrectly spelled title. No one has apparently noticed it. Has none of you heard of hyphens? - (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, but this is the common name for all articles of this type (see some others on majestic titan). Perhaps it's time to change WP:SHIPNAME? —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates[edit]

From the cancellation section:

Atago and Takao were canceled on 31 July 1924, and broken up for scrap that year.
In 1923 the Great Kantō earthquake in Tokyo caused significant stress damage to the hull of Amagi. The structure was too heavily damaged to be usable, and conversion work was abandoned. Amagi was stricken from the navy list and sold for scrapping, which began on 14 April 1924. this currently reads, the earthquake in September 23 damaged the hull making it unusable, it was sold for scrapping in April 24, and then the other two ships were cancelled in July 24. It doesn't quite make sense to cancel the two less complete ships after you've already scrapped one of the two more complete ones - either the date should be 1923, or the reasoning for cancelling two of the Amagi's needs clarifying. Shimgray | talk | 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but perhaps this will clarify things: after Amagi was damaged in the September 1923 quake, Tosa was designated in December 1923 for conversion to a carrier, in Amagi's place—so Atago and Takao had to be canceled, per the Treaty. Maralia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor[edit]

Why does it say the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on 6 December 1941? - Denimadept (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


In the info box, things don't quite add up to me, 4 planned, 0 completed, 4 cancelled, fine, but then 1 scrapped and 3 lost - that's make 8 by my book ? --Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where it's rough to fit things into an infobox in a sensible way.
  • None of the 4 planned ships were completed as designed (hence "Cancelled: 4").
  • "Lost: 1" refers to Akagi, which was converted to an aircraft carrier (ergo not completed as designed) and then sunk at Midway.
  • "Scrapped: 3" refers to the scrapping of the other 3, never-completed ships: Amagi, Takao and Atago.
If you have a better idea how to present this in the limited confines of an infobox, I'm all ears :) Maralia (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Maralia, fancy bumping into you! Not to worry - I was obviously in a nit-picky mood ! The only thing I could suggest is another statistic, something like 'modified' to indicate a vessel converted to a different final design, or maybe just a simple 'built' indicating how many were finished ? --Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Takao, Formosa vs. Mount Takao[edit]

Conway says that the fourth ship Takao was to be named after Takao (Kaohsiung), Formosa, but this is pretty implausible.

  1. Every other Japanese battlecruiser, and virtually all type A cruisers, were named after mountains.
  2. The Type A cruiser Takao, which re-used the name of the cancelled battleship, is stated to be named after Mount Takao.
  3. Two previous Takaos (1, 2) were definitely named after the mountain, because at that time there was no town of Takao.
  4. I've never heard of any Japanese warship named after a settlement.
  5. Takao was an obscure colonial town. It would have been like naming four big new RN ships Temeraire, Spitfire, Swiftsure, and Goose Bay. It's ridiculous. (Maybe not John C. Stennis ridiculous, but it's not like the IJN had a Senator from Formosa to pander to...)

TiC (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A-ha, I nailed down a citation... okay, I moved the anomalous Conway version to a note, and the main body now states Mount Takao. TiC (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amagi-class battlecruiser. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)