Talk:List of battleships

List of battleships

This list seems to missing the Queen Elizabeth class battleships of 1915: Queen Elizabeth. Valiant, Warspite, Malaya & Barham Ryebonfire (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I went through the list a while ago, trying to put in the most obvious omissions, but I apparently missed those. I'll put them in in a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the QE class, and noticed neither the Revenge class or the Renown class battlecruisers were present, so I added them as well, along with the Royal Sovereign class from the late 19th century. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sortable list

If I changed the format to a sortable list with additional details would (a) anyone object or (b) be able to help? I would envisage the default order being alphabetical by name (as now) with sortable categories covering class (alphabetical), navy, commissioning date, deep displacement, length, beam and top speed (all as final configuration). Two unsortable categories could cover primary armament and comments. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same right now, I'll do it except if there are any objections. --Tervan (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed incomplete ships, aircraft carriers, a cruiser and coastal defence ships

Since an unfinished battleship hull is not a war ship, I've removed these from the list. Same logic applies to the hulls transformed in aircraft carriers. I've also removed all the coastal defence ships, since they share more in common with monitors than with battleships. I'll make a separate list for those categories soon. Ships bought or seized before entering service have been marked as belonging to the country they were commissioned in. --Tervan (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

HMS Warrior (1860) missing

Hello,

Why is HMS Warrior missing from this list? I suppose the first iron-hulled warship deserves a place here.

Best regards,

--Marek Koprowski (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That one seemed to have slipped through. I added it to the list. Feel free to add everything you can yourself too though, I've not been very thorough in the "Notes" field. --Tervan (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

the list seems to me to be slightly inconsistent. I would suggest to define battleships consistently e.g. as follows:

Type A(rmoured Cruiser) - Ship not classified as battleship or battlecruiser with 4 or more main breech loading guns of 24cm or more in turrets with roof - No sails as propulsion

Example: German Deutschland class of 1930ies which carried 8 x 28 cm but were rather cruisers

Type B(attleship) battleship - Ship with the usual battleship armour of its period and 4-6 main breech loading guns of 24cm or more in turrets with roof - No sails as propulsion

Example: the usual 4 x 12 inch battleship

Type C(oastal battleship) - Ship with at least 3 main breach loading guns of 24 cm or more in turrets with roof - No sails as propulsion

E.g. German Odin class

Type D(readnough) battleship - Deadnough battleship with 8 or more main breech loading guns in turrets with roof - no sails as Propulsion.

Example: HMS Dreadnough

Type F(ast battleship or battlecruiser) - Type B but with a top speed of 24 knts or more.

Example: HMS Queen Elisabeth

Type I(ronclad) - Any ship with more than 3 main guns of 24 cm or more if these are in barbettes or turrets even if they are muzzle loading or if the ship still carries sail as main or auxiliary propulsion.

Type M(onitor) - Any ship withn at least 2 main guns of 24 cm or more in turrets

On the other side to be deleted any ships with main guns below 24 cm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.2.216 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Content deletion

Hello Wiki-Ed. I see that you have reverted my edition without taking into account that precisely my edition had been maintained for six months without interruption, without anyone opposing the edition until a very short time and without also considering the edition of two other users,[1][2] who did not question the edition. Taking that into account, the elapsed time (I repeat, six months) and the editions of two other users without objection, it seems to me that there was already a tacit consensus on my edition. I think the one who really should ask for a consensus is the user who recently questioned the edit and not me. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved above text from my talk page since user seems unwilling to discuss this in the right place.

It was stable for eight years before you deleted the content. Just because no one realised what you'd done for six months is irrelevant. You've removed a large amount of information; removed a sortable table; made it impossible to sort/find information; and forced readers to go through multiple links to find information in other list articles which used to be presented clearly here. The net effect of all this is that is no longer a list - you're trying to turn it into a stubby poor quality article with a disproportionate focus on second and third rate navies. And it doesn't even achieve the purpose it sets for itself in the introductory text. Close to vandalism but not quite. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that no one has realized what I have done? Did you even take the time to check the edit history of two other users who edited during those six months? or is it that they don't count? When I made my first changes to the article, nobody objected to the edition, therefore it would be valid like any other type of edition that anyone would do. Or is it that now you cannot edit articles without first reaching a consensus? Because that would only be reasonable when there is controversy at the time, but when I did the edit, nobody complained, on the contrary, they edited about my edit. I imagine you know that you can't wait forever for someone to file a complaint on the issue, and for that reason alone, reverse it as nothing when a long time has passed. The previous edition may have been eight years old, but when I made the changes no one complained, and that is the point of all this. The permanence of my current edition is justified. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You should probably have read the whole article before citing it as justification for sweeping changes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

While @Muwatallis II: made a beautiful list of battleships, this isn't the place for that list. It would be better suited under each individual country. I stand with @Wiki-Ed: on this reversion.Pennsy22 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Pennsy22:. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the place for a list of ships by country. There are three other identical articles (List of ironclads, List of cruisers and List of battlecruisers), where the ships are separated by country. I think doing it that way makes it easier for the reader to parse, rather than a big list with ships from different countries mixed in. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. They're not identical. Battlecrusiers is a featured list with unsorted tables but lots of information; Ironclads used the same sortable table as this article, at least until you made sweeping deletions a few months ago; so the only one that has consistently used the unsortable, low-info, small navies-only approach that you prefer is the list of cruisers. If you want to improve this article then use the featured Battlecruiser list as your target, ensuring you cover all the navies and all the relevant facts. What you did here was remove most of the battleships, remove most of the information on the remainder, and made it more difficult to sort through what was left. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But the starting point for why my edit was reversed for the first time was because it was divided by country. But hey, now the claim has mutated. When I made the changes that you dislike so much it was with the idea of giving a quick and expeditious view to the reader of the battleships by country, without going into details (the details are in the individual articles of the battleships). Also, if in my edition I did not cover all the navies, which I think is the other reason that bothers you so much, it is because there were lists of articles that referred to the battleships of those navies and that I added to this article. . Anyway, I have decided to look for another solution. That the article remains as is, even with the error of including ironclads. --Muwatallis II (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that you just created List of battleships for countries. Besides the title being bad grammar, you really need to discuss such an article fork beforehand, as doing this can be seen as a content fork, which is not permitted. I've redirected it for the. time being, but if it's restored without a consensus here that such an article is needed, I'll probably nominate it for deletion. BilCat (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the list is redundant to this one. Though I also agree with Mutatallis that this one is badly bloated with ships that don't meet our own definition of what a battleship is. Literally no one who has a clue what they're talking about has ever described USS Monitor as a "battleship". Parsecboy (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like User:Paska rotor added it here[3]. Unfortunately it wasn't a one-off edit and he wasn't the only one adding stuff. We'll have to comb through and remove various monitors and armoured frigates (and other oddities) which may have sneaked in. We could also just strike anything before 1875? But I don't think we want a list that only covers South American and Scandinavian navies with everything else forked off (the User:Muwatallis model). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nor is it necessary to expand with the navies of naval powers, taking into account that the list of the ships of those powers have already detailed articles. (for example: List of battleships of Japan) To do that would only be to repeat what is in those articles in this article. It would be enough to link them as before the reversion. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ed - one commonly sees either the Royal Sovereigns or Majestics described as the "first pre-dreadnoughts" by naval historians. The reasoning goes, Royal Sovereign (and more definitively, Majestic) marks the end of the period of experimentation that lasted from roughly 1860 to the late 1880s and the standardization of what became known as the pre-dreadnought (i.e., standard fore-and-aft main battery, high-freeboard hulls, and VTE machinery, among other characteristics). Royal Sovereign is the cutoff we've chosen at WP:OMT to define our scope, but of course, that's a bit messy, as there are classes like the Re Umbertos that are contemporaries, but clearly of the older style (being more or less copies of the Admirals in form if not in terms of armor and speed). But I think those can be decided on a case by case basis. In other words, generally a cutoff of 1889 with a bit of leeway in either direction.

Muwatallis - I'd expect this article would be best served if, in the long run, we developed it along the lines of the List of battlecruisers, where we took the tables from the national lists and merged them into this article. This list could hardly be considered complete if we didn't include the major powers - it would be akin to a List of cars produced in North America that left out anything manufactured by Ford, GM, or Chrysler. Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing coastal defence ships

Seems like a fair few coastal defence ships are missing. Given the above conversations, should they be added or not? Norway: Tordenskjold class, Eidsvold class, Bjørgvin class. Sweden: Svea class, Oden class, Dristigheten, Äran-class coastal defence ship, Oscar II, Sverige-class coastal defence ship. Didn't check all of these, they're just from Coastal defence ship. The lack of Sweden in this article is definitely a glaring omission. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 18:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

USS Texas (1892)

Should there be added to the description, that this USS Texas was the first Pre-Dreadnought Battleship of the United States Navy. (The 1868??? Ship that starts with a D (which I have forgotten its name) is a Ship I would call an Ironclad Ram. She was sold to France which found some very good use for her for at least 20 years) MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)