Talk:Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

Edit warring on List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

I have undone this version of the article, because the additions were unsourced (which violates Wikipedia:Verifiability), and were written in the first person (which is discoraged per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First-person pronouns).

I note that the article has been the subject of edit warring recently, which is never good for the encyclopedia. I am posting this message to the talk pages of the involved contributors, and hope that they come here to discuss the issue and come to a solution, instead of resorting to coninual back-and-forth in the article itself. -- saberwyn 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The key points that User:Medcroft seems to want to add to this article are:

• That Rampart had enlarged bow doors fitted at some point, but doesn't know when or where this took place.
• That Citadel was at Malta and may or may not have been deployed during Suez.
• That Buttress was at Suez, at which point she was involved in some sort of incident with HMS Theseus that caused some damage to her (Buttress).
• That Andalnes was last seen by user Medcroft at Portsmouth in 1977, the bell having been stolen.

The first three points seem like sources should exist somewhere for them. If they can be rewritten to remove the first person and speculative tone, and properly cited, there should be no problem inserting this information. The fourth however I just can't see reliable, verifiable sources existing for, and even if they did, it's trivial information and should not really be included here anyway. Medcroft, you said this was 'your project'. Wikipedia, and all its articles, are everyone's project. But if you can see your way to working with others we can make this a decent article, well sourced, well written and well presented, a credit to your work here. But please take this time to read through the various links you've been sent to see why the edits you were making were not in-line with policies and guidelines, and take this time to look up some sources and give some thought to how you could reword this information. Benea (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked Medcroft for 48 hours. They can edit their own talk page though. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources and expansion

Although my Google-fu is weak, I've turned up a couple of possible sources that may be of use in expanding this article. Unfortunately, I do not have access to any of these (snippet view on Google Books, etc)...maybe someone can help?

• Allied Landing Craft of World War II, published in 1985 by the United States Navy Department, may have lists of the Mark 8 craft, as well as information that could be used to expand the article
• The Story of the Royal Army Service Corps and Royal Corps of Transport, 1945-1982, by DJ Sutton, has several mentions of landing craft tank, and specific reference to a "Mark VIII" on page 176.
• The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, by Chris Bishop has some basic history and technical data mixed in with the data for the Mark 5 through Mark 7 LCTs on page 536. May be of use if we can find a second source to help us sort out which info is for which mark.

One option for the development of this list might be to expand the scope into an actual article on the Mark 8 LCT, including the technical data, builders, 'class' operational history, etc. Of course, this would be dependant on finding reliable, published sources for this info. -- saberwyn 02:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I got my hands on an old Jane's Fighting Ships, and have used it to rework this list as an article. Further sourced expansion would be greatly appreciated. -- saberwyn 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on some websites Medcroft has drawn my attention to, the book The Unknown Fleet by Reg Cooley appears to be worth investigating for usefulness as a source. -- saberwyn 10:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

Is that hp fig for all 4 diesels, or each? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The source (Jane's) does not specify. -- saberwyn 11:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Medcroft

Copied from my talk page in an effort to centralise any future discussion:

I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings. My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively. I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about. I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval. Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it. My public e-mail address is [email protected].Medcroft (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should politely point out that the only person who has argued about anything on this page is yourself Medcroft. We have all been working on it constructively and made nothing but positive contributions since we started, and I hope that you now start to talk constructively and work with us without resorting to arguments (but this is not a good start). Each editor has his or her own reasons for editing an article and I’m afraid your service, while maybe giving you some experience, does not give you any extra authority.

You seem to think that a lot of our edits are (or have been) vandalism or otherwise unconstructive. Please realise we are trying to bring this article into line with basic wiki policies, and I urge you once again to have a look at some of the main ones; WP:MOS, WP:Verifiability and WP:Civil. You are most welcome to make edits to the page, but please be constructive and do not delete or adapt sourced material. If you do I will have no hesitation in contacting admins and you will likely receive warnings again. The gallery for this page is too big, as two users have pointed out to you already, and I will be shrinking it. Once again please respect Wikipedia policy on this matter.

If you intend to completely rewrite the article I would strongly recommend that you take the extremely well meant advice given to you some time back by Jackyd101, and create the new article at User:Medcroft/Sandbox. This way you can work on it in your own time without interference. When it is ready you can post a note here or on our talkpages giving us time to review it against Wikipedia’s standards, before it is uploaded into mainspace. In the meantime I will most likely be making further additions to this version of the article because it interests me (for reasons I have already explained to you). Once your version is ready we can work on integrating it with the information already here.

Once again Medcroft, please realise that we are not trying to usurp you, belittle your experience or otherwise antagonise you. Several editors have shown nothing but genuine efforts to help you out. Please respect that and understand that this is how Wikipedia works. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is possible that Medcroft's presence will help to develop this article into one of the best articles on these sort of ships. As someone who has been on one they are in a position to describe the layout of the ship, its capabilities and use - though its best to avoid getting bogged down in detail. I may also suggest one advantage of sandboxing. You can work on the structure of the article much quicker by sidestepping the addition of precise citations until later. That said wikipedia is effectively tolerant of addition of unreferenced material until someone challenges it - plausibility is often enough for it to be left. One aside, an alternative location for a rewrite would be Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank/Sandbox and you can reserve your own sandbox for other activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it could quite easily be a GA with a bit of work, but for that it will need appropriate referencing. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ship's bell...relevance?

I'd like to query the relevance of the caption for the 'polaris missile' caption...specifically, the sentance stating that the vessel's pennant number is present on the ship's bell. There has been a bit of back-and-forth over this during the article's history. I don't think adding this to the caption is relevant because:

1. The image's current placement is (I believe) intended to illustrate the physical characteristics of the design, particularly the tank deck. The ship's bell is only in the corner, and has little relevance to the surrounding text, or any other text in the article.
2. While a close inspection of the image at maximum available resolution shows that there are markings on the bell (like almost all warship bells), this is in no way legible as text. At article resolution, there is no way a reader will be able to 'read' the information on the bell, as the caption (by noting it) imples they should.

I am not dismissing the idea that this information would not be relevant in another context (for example, a future article on the vessel herself), but doubt the benefit of including this information here. What do others think...is this part of the caption relevant to this article? -- saberwyn 00:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agree - it's irrelevent in the context of this article. 62.25.109.197 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. A) the info really isn't relevant. It might be on an article about ship bells, except that... B) you can't read what's written on the bell at all, so it really is superfluous. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the image changes, I wish to clarify that I believe File:HMAV Abbeville (L4041) - At Rhu Hard - July 1977.jpg (the 'polaris missile' image) is the best one to illustrate the size of the LCT's tank deck, at article size, we have a measurable feature (the Polaris missile) to use as reference, and at full resolution, other measurable features (particularly, the people in and around the tank deck). My objection was only with referring to the ship's bell in the caption, as this had very little relevance to what the image was being used to illustrate. -- saberwyn 12:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I only put the other one in to avoid arguing with the editor who'd removed it : ) That said, I do like the tank deck one as you get a full sense of the vessels width, but you're right, the bell image gives a better sense of scale overall. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RASC/RCT corps history?

Would anyone be able to better identify the "RASC/RCT corps history" recently added to the article as a source? Without more detailed bibliographic information (author and title at a minimum), it makes it hard to verify this source, and the information attributed to it may have to be removed. -- saberwyn 06:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for: THE STORY OF THE RASC and RCT 1945 to 1982 by Brigadier D J Sutton. Publisher: Leo Cooper ISBN: 0436506068.

This might also be of relevance: Wait for the Waggon the Story of the Royal Corps of Transport and Its Predecessors 1794-1993 by Brigadier D J Sutton. Publisher: Leo Cooper ISBN: 0850526256.

Audemer (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also of interest: The Unknown Fleet: The Army's Civilian Seamen in War and Peace by Reg Cooley. Publisher: Sutton Publishing Ltd ISBN: 9780750903844

Audemer (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if The Story of the RASC is the relevant work; it appears to have been published privately, while the vibe I get from the citations is that they are for the "Official History of the Corps"^TM, and as such would most likely have been published by (or with the expressed sanction of) the Corps itself, or a higher authority (such as the Army or the Ministry of Defence). Either way, I'm unable prove or disprove it myself, because no publicly accessible library in my nation carries the book.

Do you have access to any of the three books listed above? Would you be able to identify if the information cited to the mystery work does or does not appear in the works you have listed, and provide page numbers? -- saberwyn 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the RASC/RCT corps history; it is certainly not listed on the RLC Corps Museum website [[1]], nor in the RASC/RCT Association section of the official MOD website [[2]].

I no longer have the three books I provided references for but I will see if any old chums do. I merely provided this information in case it might be of use to you.

Another source might be: Waggoner's Way: Royal Corps of Transport, 1891-1991 by Brigadier Michael Young. Publisher: Quotes Ltd (Feb 1993) ISBN: 0860235217. I no longer have this book either.

Audemer (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As a PS, the reference to "RASC/RCT corps history" seems to have been added by Ranger Steve at 12:13, 6 April 2010. Perhaps you might ask him?

Audemer (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve merely fixed the <ref></ref> formatting...the sources were added by a non-registed (IP) editor. -- saberwyn 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out - I can find no references to "RASC/RCT corps history" - but have provided some valid references - complete with ISBN numbers. I cannot help with the "Official History of the Corps", as which Corps is not specified.

Audemer (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by the "Official History" comment is that with a title like the one given, "RASC/RCT Corps History" implies to me an official work detailing the history of the Royal Army Service Corps and/or the Royal Corps of Transport. Thanks for identifying those potential sources. -- saberwyn 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pathe Newsreels

I'm thinking that having five links to the Pathé Newsreel website is a little excessive. According to the external links guideline, external links should only be included if they add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject but can't be included in the text of the article because of copyright.

I'm not sure that linking out to five rich media pages on the same broad subject (newsreels showing the ships in action) adds much more in understanding than one, and requires that readers visit five 'rich' pages (while requiring the right plug-in and with the attendant problems with download limits/speeds associated with such media) in order to see...more of the same. -- saberwyn 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I merely included there clips as they do provide DTGs for the existence of these vessels at the time. My broadband and plug-ins do not seem to have a problem. Please feel free to remove them if you think that they are excessive.

Audemer (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Althoygh you may not experience any problems, what about readers using older/slower connections, or those (like me) who are subjected to bandwidth caps/bandwidth throttling? When I get a clear run, I'll take a good look at the provided links and try to identify the best one or two.

PS. DTG? What does that stand for? Also, please do not modify my comments, even if it is to fix minor spelling errors. -- saberwyn 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DTG = Date Time Group (sorry should have specified that this is a military term). I am sorry for any modifications to your comments - clearly this was a mistake by me when I was spell checking.

Audemer (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's alright, apology accepted. -- saberwyn 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the five I'd probably only keep Chieftains for Germany and Army Transport Display 1967; these have good clips of the vessels doing things (loading and unloading). The other videos only feature them in the background and given the mix of other craft in some of the shots, there's all sort of room for confusion. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Had a look, and agree with Ranger Steve that these two are far better in depicting the Mk 8s than the other three. I've removed the other links, and tweaked the captions. -- saberwyn 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Engines

The revision by IP 86.31.168.175 at 04:41, 10 April 2010 does seem reasonable. The Paxman History Pages [[3]] do not list a specific bhp figure for the 12PTM diesels but similar engines are listed and rated as between 500 and 600 bhp. My recollection is that they were 500 bhp each. If they had been rated at 1840 bhp each - as implied by saberwyn as in his revision of 05:07, 19 November 2009 - then for a ship of 1000 tons (nominal) you would be able to water ski behind it! Probably not as the bow doors would quickly breech. It might be that 1840 bhp is a total for all the four engines given that each pair of engines shared a single gear box.

Audemer (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1,840 bhp figure comes from a [{Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable, published source]] (Jane's Fleet Guide), although this source does not specify if this horespower figure is per engine, or total (although the latter would be less likely). Regardless, my query encompasses both the IP-provided horsepower figure and the configuration info...we can prove the manufacturer and type of engine from the sources provided. We can speculate (although we shouldn't, because this borders on violating Wikipedia's No Original Research policy - specificly "you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."^{emphasis mine}) on the possible horsepower of the engines based on similar designs. At this stage, no one has provided materials to prove either the propulsion figure, or the drivetrain/shaft configuration.

Because the 1,840 figure has been questioned, I am happy for it to be left out until a more accurate source can be found, and I'm also happy for the current engine content to stand until it is sourced, or it becomes clear that sources are not forthcoming. -- saberwyn 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) -- saberwyn 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I struck the original signature because I added to the comment twenty minutes after the original posting, and I thought the change was significant enough to require marking. Audemer, I ask again: please do not alter my comments. -- saberwyn 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I struck your signature because I thought we were in the middle of an edit conflict. I will now have to redo my edits again! Hey Ho! One of my edits was "I am sorry for any modifications to your comments - clearly this was a mistake by me when I was spell checking." So once again I apologise.

Audemer (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We now have everything out of sync and misunderstandings! I agree with you in that sources must be reliable. However even Jane's Fleet Guide might get it wrong every now and again. As you are clearly savvy about matters naval you must be able to do the maths. Suggest you remove the reference to bhp and drivetrain/shaft until we can resolve the matter.

Audemer (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- saberwyn 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Habesch... "The Mk VIIIs obtained their power from four Paxman engines, two to each shaft and 1840bhp". Now my reading of that grammatically is that each engine is 1840bhp, (substitute the number for something else, say green and the implication is that each one is green in colour). However, it really isn't amazingly clear from that one sentance.... Ranger Steve (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

L4063/HMS Jawada

From looking at previous contributions there still seems to be confusion about L4063 and L4063/HMS Jawada. One boat or two? Do you have any clues?

Audemer (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No more than before. The relevant information would most likely be in sources dealing with landing craft/amphibious warfare as performed by the RN during and after WWII. There may also be some clarifying info in earlier editions of Jane's, or in similar works such as The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World. -- saberwyn 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Potential source

H. T. Lenton's British and Empire Warships has detailed tables concerning ordering, construction, cancellation, and disposal, which may be of use for future development of this article. In the edition cited in the article, this content is located on pages 484-7. -- saberwyn 13:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

L4063

Can anyone resolve the issue of L4063 which seems to be named twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.251.53 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205130842/http://britains-smallwars.com/suez/untis.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/suez/untis.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)