Talk:S138-class torpedo boat

Discarding edits due to "non-RS" Navypedia vs. re-editing/sourcing them

There are two issues going on here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. How "reliable" is Navypedia. I have no particular reason to question Navypedia's reliability as a source; today would be the first time I have heard that it is inadequate as a source for Wikipedia - which is, after all, a generalist work and not a source of scholarship. A search through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard did not reveal any discussion about Navypedia. And it's worth noting that Navypedia is currently cited on 455 other pages.
2. Having User:Parsecboy revert an edit - twice - apparently without reading the page or attempting to determine if the information added was correct (or useful), but simply because "Navypedia" was in the edit summary. To quote Wikipedia:BRD:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see.)

The result of this reversion is to leave the page in the state I found it - namely, a useless list of numbers. I assert that, in the absence of anybody willing to fill in information from "a more reputable source", my edit should stand and be edited in turn. Not simply erased because "oh, it's from that Navypedia place I don't like". DeMatt (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN and WP:SELFPUBLISH). Navypedia is a self-published source, and thus it is not suitable to use on Wikipedia. I did read your edits, which is why I reverted them - you removed most of the members of this class of torpedo boats, because, again, Navypedia is a bad source, and in this case, wrong. I've spent the last decade+ writing articles on the Imperial German Navy - I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to sources and their reliability in this area. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Subclass splitting

Upon reading the information available to me, I made the decision to remove V150 and up, limiting this page to what I understand are the TBs allotted in financial year 1906. The reason is because of the changes in design throughout the years:

• FY 1907 (V150 through V161) launched with 2x8.8cm guns (compared to 1x8.8cm + 3x5.2cm)
• FY 1908 (V162 through G173) saw a switch to turbines from VTE
• FY 1909 (G174 through V185) changed to four 50cm torpedo tubes (compared to 3x45cm)
• FY 1910 (V186 through G197) could fire bow torpedo tubes straight forwards
• FY 1910 (S165 through S168) were a rehash of the earlier S165-S168 (from FY 1908) after the latter were sold to Turkey

This would then be accompanied by new 1907-through-1910 pages, each describing the new flotilla, that would fill in the gap between this page (1906) and the next existing one (1911). The S90 page would not need to be so divided, because of the uniformity of design in S90 through G136. G137 is problematic - it had the fourth boiler and the 8.8cm gun, like S138 - but should probably stay with S90, if only because of when it was budgeted and with which flotilla it remained. DeMatt (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. If reliable sources classify these as the same class (and they do), then that's the format we use. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Water-tube boilers or Scotch marine boilers?

Currently the article claims that the first set of boats, S138 to V160, used water-tube boilers, and later that all examples used Scotch marine boilers. But this is self-contradictory, since Scotch marine boilers are fire-tube boilers, not water-tube ones. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)