Talk:Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre

6 inch guns Almirante Latorre ( HMS Canada)

Under general characteristics the article says twelve 6 inch guns. The included diagram and one other site says that the actual count is sixteen. The count on actual pictures also seems to be 16.

Mike Potter ; [email protected]

--65.93.46.81 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch—thanks very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needs design background

Nothing so far on the design. Looks like the Iron Duke class but a full discussion would be good. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

File:The Royal Navy on the Home Front, 1914-1918 Q18972.jpg

@Ain92: Can you expand on your rationale for adding File:The Royal Navy on the Home Front, 1914-1918 Q18972.jpg to this article? I couldn't access either of the URLs you put in this edit summary, and beyond that I'm not sure the image is relevant enough to this article's subject. The rifles tell us very little about the ship, the people never crewed this battleship, and you can barely see the rifles in any case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry for the broken URLs, [1] and [2] should work. As of relevance, would it be more relevant if we add the fact to the text? Ain92 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ain92: Thanks! That second link seems reliable, but Drachinifel/C&Rsenal are as far as I know not. The former has gotten some attention, but I haven't seen things that would get them over the WP:RS hump. (Also, I and I believe several other Wikipedians have strong suspicions around how much of his research is obtained from Wikipedia.)
  • It would be worth including that the ship carried Ross rifles, but neither source speaks to the rifles in that particular photo... nor does either source mention anything about Mausers, though Chile did purchase them during their earlier arms race with Argentina. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

    C&Rsenal actually do a lot of solid historical research and are cited a lot on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=%22C%26Rsenal%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns10=1. In my longtime experience they are at least as reliable than Ian McCollum, if not more. There has been some media coverage on their demonetization and an interview on Guns.com (neither discusses the historical research though). I have found some praise on blogs however: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/tag/crsenal/ https://www.billstclair.com/weaponsman.com/index.html%3Fp=13173 https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/136132906224/crsenal-you-might-know-them-for-their-great-site Ain92 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

    I'd bring them up at WP:RSN. I'm pretty sure they aren't reliable enough the criteria set out at WP:SPS, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong! (This could be a similar situation to Navweaps, which in my experience has had nearly zero errors but still doesn't meet SPS.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

    Excuse me, is Tony DiGillian not considered a reliable source after that 2010 discussion? On C&Rsenal I started a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Reliability of C&Rsenal before bringing on to RSN. Ain92 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

    As far as I know, nothing's changed on-wiki since then. It's possible he's been cited enough elsewhere now, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

    This is utterly ridiculous, I will use WP:IAR and treat it as a reliable source in my edits regardless. Ain92 (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)