Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Russian battleship Potemkin 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2016.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 4, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
July 24, 2013 WikiProject A-class review Approved
September 30, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


It is usually written in simplified form Потемкин in Russia (instead of Потёмкин), but it is still pronounced in English "Potyomkin", not "Potyemkin" (in fact, it is pronounced "Patyomkin" because of unstressed "o") Pibwl 23:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Russian battleship Potemkin and Battleship Potemkin uprising are both integral to the history of the battleship. The content of this article is largely duplicated in the other anyway. They ought to be merged under the name of the ship. Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z


  1. (nominator) Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
  2. Support shoy 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)



WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WW1 career[edit]

It had a notable career in ww1 clashing with Goeben (as a part of a squadron) several times, each time forcing it to retire.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline section[edit]

The timeline section to some extent contradicts the origins section. The timeline section is also complete uncited. Please can someone add proper citations to reliable sources. (Communist propaganda films do not count as reliable sources.) If the timeline section cannot be provided with citations to reliable sources, it will be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Main armament muzzle velocity "9,160 ft/s (2,792 m/s)"?[edit]

This is clearly an error. The muzzle velocity on naval guns of this sort is nowhere near the claimed 9160 fps. The 2792 claimed as "meters per second" might be plausible as "feet per second." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


As of this version from 2006 the article was stable and a non-stub in British English. --John (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

The Soviet SSBN appear in "The Spy Who Loved Me" carrys the name Potemkin. -- (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


I'm not well-versed in MILHIST conventions, so ignore at will:

  • "All dates used in this article are New Style" this note seems to be irrelevant.
    • Imperial Russia didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar reforms, so they were about 10 days behind the calendar used in the west.
  • Why is the Goeben referred to as Yavuz Sultan Selim in the lede but never elsewhere? Confusing easter egg etc. Suggest using Ottoman name during description of battle but state somewhere that this is the renamed Goeben.
    • Excellent catch; I've switched every reference over to the Turkish name.
  • "They were intercepted by the German battlecruiser" the ship is no longer German.
    • Indeed.
  • Is there a WP:MOS rule about nbsp between dates and months e.g. 2  October? I see nbsps before other units of measurement
    • No.
  • "Panteleimon and the other Russian pre-dreadnoughts" can't use "the" without previous mention, so change "the" to the specific number instead.
    • Reworded this bit, see if it's clearer for you.
  • Why aren't the other instances of renaming the ship mentioned in the lede?
    • Too much detail, IMO, for the lede.
  • "after the first dreadnought entered service" wl dreadnought (I didn't because there may be a specific wl), and explain that dreadnoughts supplanted/superseded (or whatever the correct military term is) the pre-dreadnought shis en masse so that's why Potemkin was relegated to secondary roles...perhaps say the dreadnoughts became the capital ships?
    • See how it reads now.
  • "The new design combined shorter guns with" I don't know how much detail is needed here but certainly need concrete comparison of Potemkin's with Peresvet's. Comparison should offer concrete details re why the former's guns were more appropriate.... I put "shorter guns" just as a placeholder; you need "[detail] guns with range [detail]" or whatever specific details the designers thought were more appropriate.
    • Reworked this as well.
  • Lose the final blockquote, add that the film is considered a classic of propaganda, and if you're in a particulalry expansive mood, you might even add that it was a favorite of Goebbels who constantly referred to it and exhorted movie-makers to emulate it
    • OK, lemme find see if I can find a cite for that statement.
      • I'm not so sure about adding a bit about the film as you suggested above, as the whole legacy section is tied to the ship's role in the movie and the mutiny's effect on later history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I never have been and never will have anything but grudging acceptance for the "one cite at the end of the paragraph" style. Forex, I believe direct quotes must be cited immediately. Please see the cite needed I added. • 

Lingzhi(talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Just out of curiosity, what is your preferred method of citing? And you are indeed correct about the cite immediately following a quote, now to look it up... Thanks for your thorough review. I've made a lot of changes, so I'm anxious to get your opinion of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll try to keep looking at the article... As for cites, I suppose that to some degree it varies on a case-by-case basis, except for direct quotes. The latter should always be cited immediately, very preferably including the specific page number where the quote is found. As for other things, it depends on how many sources you can find, and how many details are unique to each source. Citing every damn sentence is massively annoying and n00bish; in contrast, many people (other than me) accept the "one quote at the end" method. A happy medium might be to write a "one quote at the end" paragraph then add in one or two "unique details" in each para from a source other than the one at the end. If 3 or 4 or 5 sources give the same info, especially in a historical account, surely there must be some few differences in the details offered. So first write out a paragraph. Find details that only 1 or at most 2 sources offer, and cite a couple or three of those to the relevant sources. Then kinda put a cite at the end, pointing to the most famous or authoritative source. That last cite kinda has implied scope over the whole paragraph. Does that make sense? But that's only if you have many sources... • Lingzhi(talk) 04:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • It wasn't so much here because McLaughlin is the dominant source for all the non-Mutiny/film stuff, but my rule of thumb is to cite every time you change a source in a paragraph and otherwise at the end if everything in the para is from the same source. Sometimes I'll multi source things if the source changes every clause because it's just too damn annoying to splatter cites like that across a paragraph, but most times I don't really need to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I agree. I dislike "one cite at the end", but many others think it's OK. And your other comments seem reasonable too. • Lingzhi(talk) 05:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


The transliteration that you're trying to use is not that used in any of my sources. What's yours?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ship owners[edit]

The infobox is for the legal owners of the ship, neither of which were the mutineers or the Romanians. Both of them had de facto control, not de jure ownership, which remained with the Russian Empire throughout. The mutineers had no legal authority to transfer ownership to the Romanians, who only hoisted their flag as a matter of punctilio before returning it to the actual owners.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the Romanian career section of the infobox, for the reasons given above. I've also deleted your malformed citations as Bascomb has better and more thorough information. I've added more information on the hoisting of the Romanian flag and their taking possession the ship so I hope this satisfies you. I need to dig up a copy of the Warship International article to verify that Elisabeta actually fired blanck rounds at Potemkin, but I remain unconvinced that her actions warrant a separate article and will likely send that to WP:AfD. What you should do is add that bit to the article on the cruiser, but you need a page number when you do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the IP you are dealing with here is User:Romanian-and-proud, who has been indeffed for sock-puppetry. If he resumes under another IP, let me know, and I'll block and/or protect the article as necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"The ship was relegated to secondary roles after the first dreadnought battleship entered service in late 1915"[edit]

This sentence in the lead is ludicrous. The first dreadnought entered service in 1906 (HMS Dreadnought (1906). I presume "the first Russian dreadnought" is what was meant, and have edited the article accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)