Talk:Rivadavia-class battleship

Convergence with articles in Spanish "WikiPedia" about this class and the ships that belonged to it

I'm currently trying to homogeinize the existing/future articles in both the English and the Spanish "Wikipedia" related to this battleship class.
I will concentrate first in having the same articles, with similar contents and layout (albeit this will be based in the current, outdated template that the existing articles have).At a minimum I'll add 1 article to the Spanish Wikipedia (to cover the "Rivadavia class") and 2 articles to the English one (to cover both class members' history).
Once this is done, I'll try to improve the layout of all these articles (6 in total) based on more current templates (eg: as those used in the "Iowa" battleship class articles, which seem to be pretty thorough and well done).
Regards,DPdH (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Status Update: still trying... too few time! Thanks to those who contributed in the meanwhile. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss anything relating to this class at WP:OMT to centralize all discussion on battleships with interested editors. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rivadavia class battleship

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rivadavia class battleship's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hore":

• From ARA Moreno: Hore, Battleships of World War I, 91.
• From ARA Rivadavia: Hore (2006), p. 91

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Repaired. - Salamurai (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes

• "A third dreadnought, provided for in the contract, was strongly supported in Argentina during 1910" ... can you give me any details on who was supporting it, and how, other than the newspapers? - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on what the first half of that paragraph is saying actually, please give it another look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I understand it, but I can easily see why everyone else wouldn't. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "... deal, it was alleged ...": by Germany? - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "The United States made note ...": who in the U.S.? The reference seems to be a story in the New York Times, so I'll attribute it unless you've got another source handy. And the paper says "built, building or ordered"; does that sound right? - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Same as below —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "The United States abhorred ...": who did? When you say the U.S. exerted diplomatic influence, we don't really have to say who or how, the reader can assume that diplomats under the authority of the executive branch were involved. But countries can't really be "anxious" or "abhor" things; we need a little more detail. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Same as below —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• I take that back ... there's a lot of "diplomatic pressure" in the article, and I'm not sure I know what you mean by that ... are we talking about diplomats? - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops, I don't know how I didn't think of this while writing the article. Livermore gives a lot of the credit to an American diplomat in Argentina, but I didn't mention his name to make the article simpler. Reading your comments, I think this goal was in error. I'll rework this in the next few days when I am back home. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "convert|27|in|8.5|in|m" should be something else. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That was supposed to be ft|8.5|in —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "A more reasonable estimate would be 90° on their sides.": might be a good sentence to omit since it sounds hypothetical and it's sourced only to navweaps. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• "loaded in a dedicated compartment": not sure what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A separate compartment that did not hold shells, bunk crew, etc.—it was dedicated to launching the torpedoes. Too specific? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Are the rangefinders 15 feet long? Does that help identify them? My instinct would be not to give the length, or to substitute a model name or number, unless they were known by their length. (And if we stick with the length, my call would be not to convert to metric.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point, removed —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "typically characterized in part by": would "known for" cover what you want to say? - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've changed this, but not to the suggested wording. Take another look to be sure? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• You use "it" sometimes; did you want to say "she"? - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that is in the service histories, which I haven't rewrote yet. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

J's comments

The article was just promoted (yay) ... Ed, I don't have some of these sources, can you help with J's FAC comments when you get a chance? - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Line drawing

Note to me (and anyone interested, really): there's a good line drawing of the ship in Google Books here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional source

Just a note for me (and anyone else interested), there is an additional source on these ships' launching here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote templates

Resolved

I recently placed {{bq}} (which used raw styling markup) in this template with {{quote}}. After an unexplained revert, and another with an abusive edit summary, this has now been replaced with bare HTML markup.

The three versions are styled thus:

Template:BQ (with "style=font-size:90%"):

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Template:Quote:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

<blockquote><span style="font-size:90%;">:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

As can be seen, there are absolutely no style differences between the first two, while the latter has smaller - and thus harder to read - text. Of the three options, only {{quote}} prevents raw markup from being exposed to editors. It should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rivadavia-class battleship. 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/20090605023722/http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/HistoriaAcorazadosArgentinos.htm to http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/HistoriaAcorazadosArgentinos.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rivadavia-class battleship. 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/20131106080403/http://www.histarmar.com.ar/InfHistorica/AntiguaFlotadeMar/EspTec10AcMoreno.htm to http://www.histarmar.com.ar/InfHistorica/AntiguaFlotadeMar/EspTec10AcMoreno.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

first photo

I feel that the battleship was still incomplete because seems to miss the left wing turret. Is someone able to confirm my feeling and eventually insert it in the caption? pietro151.29.43.111 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on this photo, I think what you're seeing is the back of the wing turret (just above the sixth casemated gun). :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)