Talk:HMAS Westralia (F95)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Westralia badge.png
Image:HMAS Westralia badge.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks must go to Salavat for saving the Image:HMAS Westralia badge.png from oblivion for use on both this page and HMAS Westralia (O 195). However, I believe it's use is only valid for the most recent reincarnation of the vessel. I do not think that the modern ship badges were adopted by the RAN until at least after World War II. I will see what I can find from this by asking the navy directly. 

Westralian (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Displacement v. tonnage
I have altered the "Displacement" field to "Tonnage", on the authority of Lloyd's, the rating agency. As contiuously reported from 1930 through 1945, (the years for which Lloyd's Registry is available on-line) this originally-civilian vessel measured 8108 gross, 4717 net. There the matter should rest, but an external link from the Australian navy gives "Displacement" as 4,717 tons standard and 8,108 tons full load. This must be incorrect. Westralia was a merchant ship; Lloyd's was the rating bureau that measured tonnage (which of course is volume, not mass or weight), and it is unlikely that the vessel's value for net tonnage exactly equaled the figure for standard displacement, and that full-load displacement was the exact same number as gross tonnage. Someone likely made an error in the navy website (which otherwise appears to be authoritative, and can be used to fill in some of the citation requests). Similarly, uboat.net also conflates displacement with tonnage, a common error on that website. The applicable page cited here gives Westralia’s "displacement” as 8108 BRT, the abbreviation for "Bruttoregistertonnen", the German term for gross register tons of 100 cubic feet. "1 BRT = 100 Kubikfuß = 2,8316846592 m³."  Kablammo (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)