Talk:HMAS AE1

Article Naming
It may be technically incorrect to call the Article HMAS AE1, due to the fact that when the sub was in action it was not called this. But I think this is a far better name than "Australian Submarine AE1", and the HMAS tag is what the RAN now refers to the sub as, as seen in their history page (in the references on the article). Nomadtales 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I moved the article from "Australian Submarine AE1", which is now a redirect. Convention on Wikipedia appears to be (to me) that ship designations and flags are 'retconned' to cover ships that would be covered by them if they entered service tomorrow. -- saberwyn 11:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discovery
The 2007 discovery has been identified as a rock!! Im going to add this to the section


 * OK good, but do you have a reference, to back this up? Any online news article would be good. Nomadtales 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I want a source on this one, fact tagged. -- saberwyn 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Flagging recent news article


Noting this news article (which is about two planned, competing searches for the submarine) for future use in expanding the article. -- saberwyn 05:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential source
http://museum.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/No.%20247%20AE1%20Rabaul%202009.pdf - Western Australian Museum report about a 2009 search for AE1. -- saberwyn 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS AE1. 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/20130921053555/http://www.rnsubs.co.uk/Boats/BR3043/contents.php to http://www.rnsubs.co.uk/Boats/BR3043/contents.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Page refresh
This page needs a bit of a spring clean. Headings are out of whack and some of the citations require hyperlinks. Everything currently under the heading "Citations" should be under the heading "References" and everything currently under "References" should be under the heading "Further reading". The citations could be formatted using Template:Reflist & template:R to tidy up the code. Thoughts? 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Boneso, which headings are out of whack (or are you just referring to the citations/headings)? Re the citations/references headings, I'm not so sure about a straight switch. This isn't a citation style I use, but some of the entries in the References are the long form of entries in the Citations section so it would need more than just a heading change (more like a merge and then split), I think. Probably best to ping (who I believe was a main contributor earlier in the article's development), although they may not be active anymore. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The headings are fine according to MOS:APPENDIX; Lvl 2 for the citations and references and Lvl 3 for the various types of references. It's not a style that I use myself, but I used the existing style when I expanded it a few years ago. I do agree that the long form refs recently added do need to be moved to the article subsection and replaced with short form ones matching the existing style. But it's not a priority for me, so feel free to do that yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sturm, I can try to make it consistent if you think that best. The current style is a bit different to what I'm used, so I will have to think about how to achieve it, but it is certainly doable. I wouldn't want to do it, though, if there are concerns that it isn't a workable style. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it's workable; I don't like it because I'm all about doing just enough to allow the reader identify the work being cited which generally means "author, page #" and I really don't see any utility in dividing references by type. The article's not far off GA status and redoing the long-form refs would be one of the things that would help to get it there once it stabilizes a bit after all the info from its discovery is absorbed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Its a a great page that I won't visit too often so I don't want to upset the regular editors.  I've never seen a page laid out this way and I thought there was a bit of doubling up between the references and citations.  I understand why it is done that way - wiki markup is a mess; my suggestion would certainly help to tidy it up.    The disadvantage of my method is that if an editor uses the "cite" option from the menu, the citations is placed inline and we end up with a mixture of different coding styles which is worse.  I keep a watchful eye on the pages that I have written/re-written and fix any coding issues as they arise, but I won't be doing it with this page.  Anyway, I might play with links in the citations when I get a spare few minutes over the next few days.  If there is a consensus to make any changes I have suggested, I'm willing to make those changes.  Its been a pleasure.  8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wreck discovered at 300 m, vs max safe depth of 200 feet: ?
This is 200 feet after new bulkheads added, so it is roughly 990 feet vs 200 feet, over a factor of 5X difference. Of course it could have sprung an uncontrollable leak above 200', and then settled to below 200' before breakup. I'm wondering though if there might be a units conversion overlooked, eg, 300 feet instead of 300 meters. Wwheaton (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, as far as I can tell, the cited source says "300 metres". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * From reading the article it seems most likely that the cause of the sinking was having the inner and the outer doors on the stern torpedo tube both open at the same time in the same manner as later caused the loss of the Thetis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Map(s)
I suspect that like me, many readers are unfamiliar with the geographical locations mentioned in this article. Maps would be very helpful, particularly a map that showed the locations of the last known position, the various searches and the final discovery. YBG (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added a couple that I found on Commons. I don't have any graphics skills, though, so I had to go with what I could find there. If there are better ones available, or anyone has the ability to make something tailor made, please feel free to replace what I've added. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only GPS coordinates or a little star on the maps would be better. THANK YOU! 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed one of the earlier maps now, and tweaked the one you added. It is best not to sandwich the text like that, so I've moved it down a bit, and added a caption and border to clean it up a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ideally, we'd have a single map that showed multiple locations. I think there's a way to do that, but it'll take a bit of research to find it. It is apparent that many locations were searched, but from the text or the maps currently one cannot tell the relative location and distance between the the last departure location, the various areas of search, and the final discovery location. YBG (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture
Since both pictures of the sub currently on this page are photos of it on the surface, I think there should be an illustration of the entire sub- maybe with a scale to indicate size. Is one available for this class? If not, can someone make one? CFLeon (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)