Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This list has all the vessels (with the exception of hulks, tugs and smaller patrol craft) put into service by the Royal Yugoslav Navy between 1921 and 1945. It is one of the final pieces of a project I've been working on for several years, a Good Topic on the Royal Yugoslav Navy. All criticisms and suggestions gladly accepted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: Sorry, lists aren't my strong suit. Just a few random (and incredibly minor) observations from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik.jpg": not sure about the licencing on this one. It seems to have a pd rationale and a fair use rationale. If fair use, it should also have a rationale for this list
  • "File:SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf.jpg": probably needs a date added to the description page
  • inconsistent "United Kingdom" v. "Great Britain"
  • United Kingdom isn't linked on first mention, but most other countries are
  • Thanks for taking a look, Rupert. I've removed the sub pic, added dates (of service) to the description page, fixed the inconsistency and linked all on first mention and unlinked on later mentions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, your changes look good to me. I've taken another look now that I've started to get on top of my flu and I can think a little clearer (not much mind, but then I probably wasn't thinking clearly before the flu...). I have a couple more points below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • extrapolating the guidance (potentially to breaking point, admittedly...) at WP:LAYOUTEL about using plurals even if there is only a single item, I think the headings such as "Light cruiser", "Coastal defence ship", and "Corvette" etc should potentially be plurals even though there was only one
    • I think that might be stretching the guidance.
  • I wonder if the lead could be expanded a little more (to say perhaps two paragraphs)
    • Done.
  • "River Flotilla" --> "River flotilla"?
    • Done.
  • could this title be translated: "Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe"?
  • Just thought I'd add that all class names in noun format (i.e. Hrabi class, Ushok class) should not be hyphenated. Class names are only hyphenated in adjectival form (i.e. Gazelle-class light cruiser) Llammakey (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • motor torpedo boats is over linked in the lead
  • Fixed.
  • Starting a list article "This is a list" is generally discouraged as it just repeats the information in the title. For example, see List of destroyers of India, from which I removed a similar sentence after discussion at FLC.
  • Done.
  • Better to mention "PT boats" in full
  • Done.
  • Usage of flag icon is also discouraged at FLC. The above mentioned list is an example. Also per MOS:ICON
  • Returned in 1949; use lower case "R"
  • Done.
  • Some tables have images and some don't. This leads to inconsistency. Better to drop the image column from all the tables and add the images on right flank of the list, see List of National Defence Academy alumni.
  • I prefer to group the images with each class, and not all classes have a free image available. I don't think the inconsistency is a problem, the tables are of varying widths regardless.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 6, 250t-class torpedo boats; Same image is presented for the entire class, if I am not wrong it is T3's. So I suggest to caption the image stating that it represents T3. Also for Orjen class, Hrabri class and River monitors.
    • I've pulled out the image column and made them separate, with appropriate captions.
  • Also add |alt= field for all the images.
    • Done.
  • I suggest adding a few lines of prose for each class/section explaining the table below. This is done many FL's including Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, List of battlecruisers of Japan, List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy etc.
    • In this case, I think that would be redundant. The notes in the tables say everything that would be in the prose.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Krishna. I've reconsidered my position given your comments and Parsecboy's, and have created subsections, brought the notes out into text and added a couple of extra pics. Let me know what you think, or if anything else could do with a tweak? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good for me, added my support. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I'd like to see some technical details in the tables to give readers a sense of the size/capabilities of the vessels. A lot of the tables feel pretty barren at the moment (like the MT boat table, for instance).
  • At the same time, the tables feel a little cluttered, which is to say, multiple tables in the same sections without anything to break them up. I might suggest sub-headers to split them.
  • I can't say I love the sentence fragment notes sections. I suppose this is a personal preference, and you obviously don't have to follow the pattern Sturmvogel and I have used in our lists, but I feel like short paragraphs above the tables works better.

All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Parsecboy I've taken the notes out of the tables, created subsections and added in a couple of new pics. I've added displacement, but am not sure what else to add to the tables. Any suggestions? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually do primary armament (usually just the main battery or torpedoes), displacement, armor (if present), and basic engine details (type of engines, horsepower, and speed). You can crib the formatting from List of cruisers of Austria-Hungary (my current work-in-progress) along with a key table I've used in my lists, if you decide to go that route. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The former SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf had been completed as an ironclad warship in 1889, so was an obsolete coastal defence ship when acquired by the Navy of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1921, and was scrapped the following year. Could you please split this into two sentences?
    • Done.
  • Only need to link long tons and knots upon first use, i.e. the first table.
    • Done.
  • Not fond of the sentence fragments in the Fate sections. They're a little long, IMO, not to be treated as sentences.
    • Changed to sentences where appropriate.
  • If you want the hyphen to properly display in the sclass- template, change the last digit to 0, rather than 4. I changed the one for Niobe for you already.
    • Not sure where this isn't correct.
      • That might have been the only example.
  • Link Genoa, Trieste, Bay of Kotor and all other places on first use. And struck off, raised, helicopter, water tanker (on first use), mined.
    • Done, except struck off and raised, what are the articles for them?
      • Struck off should probably link to Navy list and raised would be marine salvage.
  • After the Italian capitulation, two were returned to the KJRM-in-exile but one was sunk by German aircraft, and another was scuttled by her Italian crew. This reads to me like the Germans sank one of the returned ships. This whole bit is confusing.
    • Broke it up, see what you think?
      • Looks OK.
  • The boats that had escaped were transferred to the Yugoslav Navy at the end of the war Returned seems more appropriate than transferred.
    • In this case, it was transferred, as the two organisations effectively existed in parallel until the end of the war.
      • OK.
  • Suggest you use a colspan=4 in the table for all of the Orjens sunk at Salonkia.
    • Done.
  • KJRM in 1930 but comma after KJRM
    • Done.
  • Link to the WW2-era Croatian Navy.
  • Italians in April 1941 but survived to the war "and" survived. Delete "to"
    • Done.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_ships_of_the_Royal_Yugoslav_Navy&oldid=762537422"