Talk:Order of battle at Jutland

Captain of HMS Minotaur

There is some dispute about the exact name of the commander of HMS Minotaur.

Arthur Cloudesly Shovel Hughes D'Aeth appears in in the National Archives (at least according to it's online database); this spelling also appears in the London Gazette for 1 Jan 1897 (promotion to Lieutenant) and 28 June 1907 (promotion to Commander), and in the Navy list from March 1913 until Jan 1914 (up until his promotion to Captain), and from 1924 onwards (he retired and was promoted Rear Admiral 1 Sep 1924).

Arthur Cloudesley Shovel Hughes D'Aeth appears in the Navy List from Feb 1914 until 1923. This spelling also appears in the London Gazette (confirmation as Sub-Lieutanant, 1 October 1895; award of CB, 15 Sept 1916; award of Legion d'Honeur, 15 Sept 1916).

Arthur Cloudesley Shovell Hughes D'Aeth appears in the probate records for England and Wales, (reporting his death on 23 August 1956).

Presumably these are all the same person. Either the spelling was actually changed during his lifetime, or various clerks and printers were making mistakes. But at the time of Jutland, both the Gazette and the Navy List concur he was spelling it Cloudesley. Dfvj (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of his service record from the National Archives, which also covers his whole life, including the time of Jutland, so your logic is somewhat flawed. It's also customary for new talk page sections to go to the bottom of the page and not the top. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This topic is placed here because it deals with a similar theme to the discussion of Farie. The spelling of this officer's name is a rather minor point, and your pejorative language is hardly appropriate. When researching historical subjects you must not fixate on a single source, but rather use ALL the available sources; when they disagree, one must evaluate them in an attempt to deduce what is most probably the truth. Far from being "somewhat flawed" logic, this has been the basis of historical scholarship from the time of Herodotus. In this case, it is not clear if the different spellings of this individual's names were deliberate (perhaps due to changing fashions among contemporary historians regarding his famous namesake (?ancestor)), or were due to mistakes by careless officials or printers. Either way, his confidential service record was compiled and maintained by his superior officers and by officials at the Admiralty, starting when he joined the navy; the spelling used initially would have been perpetuated. Conversely, the Navy List was a public document published monthly under Admiralty authority, which was closely monitored by all ambitious officers and which specifically invited amendments from individuals concerned; it changed the spelling of his name to "Cloudesley" when he was promoted to Captain on 31 December 1913. The London Gazette used "Cloudesley" in the announcement of his CB (awarded for services at Jutland) in September 1916; this later is by far the best indication available of how he preferred his name to be spelt at the time of Jutland; indeed, since the Gazette is the official journal of record for the British government, one could argue that his name was spelt that way by definition. Dfvj (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have 1,300 service records for naval officers covering the period when D'Aeth served. Errors in name were corrected - a stray letter crossed out, a hyphen added, and so on - so inaccurate spellings evidently weren't perpetuated ad infinitum. D'Aeth's service record was added to over a period of 56 years, and yet there is no indication a mis-spelling was made. Yet you would place reliance on a third party source. There is clearly only one reliable source here, and that is his service record. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's nice you have such a large collection; clearly you have a far from disinterested attitude regarding their veracity. But unless you can demonstrate that the officer in question personally approved the spelling of his name as it appears in this record, it does not constitute a pertinent primary source regarding this point. While one source would hardly be compelling, there are three official publications (Navy List, Gazette, Probate Record) all spelling his name "Cloudesley"; so yes, absent more compelling direct evidence, I do place some reliance on them! The footnote I have added to the article I think is a fair assessment of the situation.Dfvj (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We clearly differ on what constitutes an official source. It's not worth my time arguing with you over it since you clearly think you know better. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, his obituary in The Times spells it "Cloudesley" as well.Dfvj (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Captain of HMS champion

I have a book here which lists the captain of champion as J. H. farie, whereas the article already lists him as J. U. Farie. Couldn't say which is wrong, but someone has made a mistake. Sandpiper (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

James Uchtred Farie was his name, here's his service record. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 04:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

German names

Looking at this article, I was wondering if there was a particular reason for its use of entirely German names in the German section. While there isn't a section that I can find that directly deals with this, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says that English translations should be used for common terms. In this article, it seems like there is no translation of common terms. Looking at other OOB articles, such as Order of battle at Dogger Bank (1915), English translations are used. Is there a particular reason for the use of German names here? I can understand a desire for precision in ranks and such, but using terms such as "Hochseeflotte" instead of High Seas Fleet just confuses the majority of readers who do not speak German. – Joe N 15:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The "article" is something of a massive unreferenced mess. The problem with the original German is it can be so many ways: take Hochseeflotte for example - it can be either High Sea Fleet or High Seas Fleet, and if you polish the German properly you end up with Grand Fleet! --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I take your point but the article is beginning to descend into the unintelligible where us non german speakers have to guess what terms mean, which isnt acceptable. Someone with absolutely no idea of German ought to able to see what a title means. I dont accept that Hoch see flotte would ever reasonably translate as anything other than High Sea(s) Fleet and this seems to be universally accepted? If you don't give normally accepted translations of rank then comparing importance of commanders becomes difficult. Perhaps we need an easy reference section at the start of the German bit listing equivalent ranks, then we could use the German ones, and translations as we go along of titles such as 'Chef der Stabes' (head groom?). Sandpiper (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

High Seas Strike Force (Hochseestreitkräfte) vs. High Seas Fleet (Hochseeflotte): the German Official History uses the latter as the designation of Scheer's command (and they, presumably would know!)Dfvj (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Red Links

A lot of the red links have been taken out: I dont like this, they used the standard format titles for those ships with reasonable expectation that someone will eventually get round to writing ship articles for each of them. The red links need to go back as no one otherwise will notice the articles are missing.Sandpiper (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much German

I reiterate Sandpiper's point from earlier. The article is simply impenetrable for those without some knowledge of German, which defeats the point of having an English-language article. You don't see total Japanese in Midway order of battle, for example. I believe that terms such as Hochseeflotte should be given their common English translation at the very least. Slac speak up! 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a glossary for German ranks; also I have changed the English versions of various units to translations more commonly appearing in the published sources (e.g. Scouting Group instead of Reconnaissance Group for Aufklärungruppe; Half-Flotilla instead of Semi-Flotilla for halbflottille). I have included the German designations in (bracketed italics) after the usual English version of the name, since the German designations are often useful for follow-up searches. Also, I have started adding some of the references for the information. Dfvj (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to articles in German

I have added some links to German wikipedia.de articles on German officers, where no such article exists in English; they can provide some information for the non-German speaker (like dates, photographs etc.), and for those who want to learn more, most browsers have pretty good translate features these days. Dfvj (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:REDLINK, linking to other-language Wikipedias is generally inappropriate if the subject of said link should have an article on the local project. Mauve and Levetzow, at least, should have articles here on en.wiki, and so linking to the de.wiki article is not the best course of action, since it's just creating more work once those articles are created. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Translating the German wiki pages is not such a big deal, most browsers do it automatically if you ask them. I agree that English articles for Mauve and Levetzow are appropriate, but until they are written, why replace active links to pages containing useful information with red dead links which contain none? Dfvj (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it creates the impression that the articles exist, therefore there is no need to write them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have put links to German pages as supercripts to the red links to the non-existant English pages, and makes it crystal clear that a page in German exists without a corresponding English translation. This also conforms to one of the suggestions on WP:REDLINK for this situation.Dfvj (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To do List

• The article references in the British Battlecruisers 3 x Lion Class ships and no HMS Queen Mary. I suggest it should reflect 2 Lion Class and 1 HMS Queen Mary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.90.209 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Overall, this article is too pedantic and too cluttered with superfluous information.
• why give all the given names of British officers? also, all of this is un-sourced; replace names with those used in the primary source (full names can go on pages for the individual).
• Do we need to put the squadron commanders on a separate line from the name of the squadron: this just clutters things up when there is no ambiguity in putting the commander's name immediately after the title. (DONE)
• Do we need to put Battleship, Cruiser etc. in front of every ship? Surely readers will assume that every vessel assigned to a Battle squadron is a battleship, every vessel assigned to a destroyer flotilla is a destroyer,etc., so that the type need only be noted for exceptions (such as light cruisers assigned to battle squadrons etc.)(DONE)
• What's wrong with using abbreviations for ranks if a glossary is included?(DONE)
• Need more citations for sources of information on British flotilla organizations (which differ from standard publish sources and must be justified from primary sources.)(DONE)
• Maybe add British Submarines? none were engaged... (Harwich Force OOB for Jutland is on the separate page for that force).
• Add German U-Boats deployed for the operation? (DONE)
• resolve the contradictory information about the CO of German 6th Half-Flotilla.(DONE)

Just a quick note: unlike, say, "destroyer flotilla", where the type of ship is obvious, I don't think the composition of a "Battle squadron" is immediately clear. A casual reader might just assume that it's a squadron organized for battle. Howicus (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair point; there is a heading in bold face saying Battleships before the list of Battle Squadrons; but adding it to the title might make things clearer.Dfvj (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we need all the given names of British CO's?

This article is too cluttered and listing all of the British officers' given names is more information than is required for the general reader interested in Naval History. Jellicoe's Jutland despatch lists the COs with one given name and initials: what was good enough for the Admiralty should be good enough for Wikipedia! I submit the full names of the British officers are of interest to a minority of readers, who can obtain the information easily from the Navy Lists of the period (which are available free on-line from the National Library of Scotland). Opinions please?Dfvj (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)