Talk:HMS New Zealand (1911)

Disambiguating hatnote on unambiguous article
Since there are no other ships named "HMS New Zealand (1911)", the hatnote here is unneeded. See WP:NAMB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But there are other ships named HMS New Zealand and the reader needs guidance in case this is not the one that he wanted. There's a reason why ships have their own style of hatnote and why virtually every British warship has a hatnote just like this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason may be simple inertia and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. How does this hypothetical reader reach an article titled HMS New Zealand (1911) if this is not the one he wanted? Not by wikilink (which intend this ship) or by the search box (which will give him the set index). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More than likely, the disambiguator (year) means nothing to the reader, so he may want the pre-dreadnought battleship or some other ship listed on the ship index page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain how he might have reached this page instead of the set index. If the year doesn't mean anything to him, he'll land on the set index. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could have been from a link, I suppose. WP:Ships does things in its own way, even to article titles, and I'm OK with that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't really care. I believe that WP:Ships rules make more sense in this case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Don't really care." is unhelpful. Why does the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS make "more sense" here, since the broader consensus of WP:NAMB makes the same sense for actually describable reasons (the title isn't ambiguous, readers are unlikely to land here in need of a navigational hatnote), and the only reason you've given for ignoring it is "because WP:Ships says so". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a person with an interest in maritime history and ships, I often "land" in articles like this one, when looking for another ship of the same name. It's quite easy to reach the wrong ship when searching, it happens to me all the time. Removing hatnotes like the one here would be really unfortunate. Manxruler (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ: how does one get on this page? As manxrukler says. Maybe it is time to demonstrate the opposite: "someone who does not look for this page, will not end up here". Meanwhile the answer could be: links from outside of WP can misdirect. For example Google does not use the same DAB logic as WP does. Then, once on this page, the reader cannot get to the right page (but through a hatnote). Even worse, the reader will not know that this is the wrong page. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: Another situation where a reader can arrive at this page while looking for another HMS New Zealand. That is when a reader browses the set list (or dab page) HMS New Zealand, looking for a specific ship (Say, the ship from shipyard X). That reader can click each name from the list to check, and go back to the list throug the hatnote when not found. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While the potential for confusing one title for another is a good reason, I don't think providing round-trip navigation is a valid reason. There should be no expectation for hatnotes to provide functionality readily available through the browser's back button. older ≠ wiser 21:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAMB is a frequently criticized guideline, and arguably does not enjoy a broad consensus. While the disambiguating phrase "(1911)" is sufficient to produce a unique article title, IMO the titles can be confused easily enough that a hatnote is helpful in this case. older ≠ wiser 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree - the hatnote is useful to readers. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant part of the NAMB guideline is: However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. It recognizes that sometimes the parenthesis disambiguation is not enough for the user to arrive to the right article and thus the hatnote is needed. The majority of editors above feel that this is the case here; I'd say the reason for this is that both article titles are distinguished only by year, so both disambiguation terms belong to the same class. This is enough for having unique titles, but not for useful navigation. Diego (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Google example Diego Moya provided on the hatnote talk page was very useful in demonstrating a reason to keep the hatnote here. Much more than "because all ships ignore the broader consensus" or "I don't care". Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this article title isn't ambiguous with all of the entries on the disambiguation page, only with the one HMS Zealandia entry that also mentions 1911. So a wordier about hatnote should be used here to elaborate that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all this thread leads to a need for redefinition of WP:NAMB. Currently it only mentions WP internal searching and linking, not the external search engines. Second, the suggestion by Joy is a sort of compromise that does not solve either side. To me, it does not reflect the outcome of this talk (which is until now: there is a good reason in the google-remark to keep the hatnote coutering NAMB), and still it is not conform NAMB. (The other HMS has a disambiguated title, by the year, too, so NAMB still says no need for a hatnote).  Apart from these two the result as a hatnote is cryptic and missing its primary goal. For now I revert to the earlier version we are talking about, by WP:IAR and reasonable sense I think. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, no, this thread doesn't lead to that need - you simply can't change an established guideline at a single article's talk page. The appropriate place for that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote.
 * Fixing the "Google leads people to random places" problem is not a problem specific to one article, at least I don't see anyone claiming that it disproportionally affects one article, so it should not be worked around at one single place.
 * The primary goal of hatnotes is to tell you "You've arrived at an ambiguous title", and what to do. This article's title is ambiguous with HMS New Zealand (1904) because of a common date. The date is not obvious from that other title, but the fact is that the latter ship was called the same name up to some point in 1911. Hence, WP:NAMB does not apply in that case. But, this article's title is not ambiguous with a 1946 Malta-class aircraft carrier that doesn't even have an article and is instead just a line on the disambiguation page.
 * The suggestion that a featured article should violate an established guideline is, well, preposterous in and of itself. It's even more silly to violate it with the goal of linking a single unreferenced sentence about a vessel whose potential article name would not be ambiguous with this article's name.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't put too much weight on the small number of ships using this name as that is not necessarily typical. The hatnote needs to deal with a dozen or more ships for some of the more popular RN ship names and I think that it works well enough as is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It now occurs to me to mention that ship articles do not follow the general WP naming guidelines as they are far too general to be useful when there are dozens of ships with the same name. So we preemptively disambiguate to minimize any confusion and rely on the ship index pages to guide readers to the exact ship that they're interested in if all they've got is a name. Hence the hatnotes, the utility of which WP:NAMB doesn't even recognize.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

s' or 's?
This truly isn't actually the thing that is exercising me most today, (and I don't do LOLs), however.... The article says captains Halsey and Green both wore the lucky piupiu, and also says "The captain's piupiu was returned to New Zealand". Shouldn't that be "captains' piupiu" because more than one captan wore it? Or is it be "captain's piupiu" beause only one captain could wear it at a time? I'll go back to work now.Moriori (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter, I think - the piupiu was assigned to whoever the captain of the ship was and only he was meant to wear it. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HMS New Zealand (1911). 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/20130722150143/http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/6960/an-historic-piupiu to http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/6960/an-historic-piupiu
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004153451/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67895 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67895
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428083354/http://www.hmsnewzealand.com/ to http://www.hmsnewzealand.com/

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) 09:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Acquisition and construction
There are numerous issues with this section, especially its claim that New Zealand responded to the development of the fleet unit concept by offering a battlecruiser. This is totally incorrect as the offer of what eventually became HMS New Zealand was made in March 1909 and the concept was not unveiled until July 1909.

Based on my reading of the following:

- Britts, Angus (2021): Ceaseless Watch: Australia’s Third-Party Naval Defense, 1919–1942

- Lambert, Nicholas (1996): Economy or Empire?: The Fleet Unit Concept and he Quest for Collective Security in the Pacific, 1909–14

- Pelvin, Richard (2016): The Battlecruiser HMS Australia (1911). A chapter in The World of the Battleship: The Design & Careers of Capital Ships of the World's Navies, 1880–1990

- Waters, Sydney David (1956): Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45: The Royal New Zealand Navy

- Wright, Matthew J. (2001): Blue Water Kiwis: New Zealand's Naval Story 1870-2001

- Wright, Matthew J. (2021): The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire

This section makes little to no mention of the conflict between the self-governing dominions with the Admiralty about how defence of the Empire should be undertaken, which partly contributed to Ward’s decision to offer a capital ship. The British Admiralty] maintained that the naval defence of the Empire, including the Dominions, should be unified under the Royal Navy. Newfoundland, New Zealand and the South African colonies, supported a policy of contributions to a single imperial navy whereas Canada and Australia were in favour of individual navies under each Dominion’s control.

It makes no mention that following Fisher’s appointment as First Sea Lord in 1904 that he had implemented a major reorganization of Royal Navy deployments which had concentrating vessels in home waters and reduced costs by scrapping numerous older vessels stationed across the Empire had deprived the empire of protection. Coupled with this was the signing of the Anglo Japanese Alliance in 1902 which allowed the Royal Navy to economise by withdrawing six battleships from the China Station and thus degrading the protection of British interests in the Pacific ie Australia and New Zealand.

There is no mention of Japan’s victory over the Russian Navy in the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 which was regarded with trepidation in Australia which saw itself as a bastion of white settlement in the Pacific.

Against this background the direct catalyst for New Zealand’s offer was the 1908 to early 1909 naval crisis that occurred in Britain in response to a perceived increase in the number of Germany capital ships.

When announcing the naval estimates in the House of Commons on 16 March 1909 the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the First Lord of the Admiralty claimed that that this number of ships were needed as the expansion of the German Navy had placed Great Britain in an exceedingly critical situation

This debate was closely followed in both New Zealand and Australia. The crisis effectively ended when the British naval estimates presented on 16 March 1909 were stepped up to provide for the building of eight battleships instead of four. When announcing the naval estimates in the House of Commons the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the First Lord of the Admiralty claimed that that this number of ships were needed as the expansion of the German Navy had placed Great Britain in an exceedingly critical situation.

On 20 March 1909 the prime minister of New Zealand submitted a cabinet paper in which he proposed that New Zealand offer “at least one, and, if necessary, two first-class battleships of the Dreadnought or latest types, and that the offer should be on behalf of New Zealand and at our own cost; the battleships to be. controlled both in peace and war time absolutely by the British Admiralty…” The offer was sent to the British government on 22 March 1909.

When they heard the news there were public calls in Australia for their country to make a similar offer, but the Australian federal government refused to make an offer. However goaded by the press the state governments of New South Wales and Victoria announced on 4 April that they were prepared to share, on the basis of population, in the cost of a battleship, unless the Federal government were to offer one.

Meanwhile on 29 March the Canadian Parliament passed a resolution approving the establishment of a Canadian naval service.

In view of all these competing proposal the British Government proposed on 30 April 1909 that the leaders of the self-governing dominions attend a special imperial conference beginning on the 28 July to discuss where the whole question of imperial defence could be discussed afresh.

It was at this conference that the Admiralty proposed to the surprise of the dominions the creation of Fleet Units: forces consisting of an armoured cruisers of the new Indefatigable class, three light cruisers, six destroyers, and three submarines, which would address both the need for ships capable of  defending maritime trade in the Asia- Pacific against German and the desire of Australia and Canada to have their own navies. Four fleet units were proposed but eventually commitments were obtained to one Fleet Unit based at the China Station organised around HMS New Zealand and the other organised around HMS Australia, which would be based in Australian waters.

The claims in the article that New Zealand was asked to fund the China station is not totally correct. Lambert states that New Zealand agreed at the conference that in return for the Royal Navy stationing several modern cruisers and destroyers in New Zealand to increase its subsidy and to pay the interest and sinking fund on the cost of one battlecruiser. John Prattley (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * John Prattley, can you be more specific? You aren't giving page numbers or even chapters. You point at A Ceaseless Watch: Australia’s Third-Party Naval Defense 1919–1942 (Studies in Naval History and Sea Power) but that's a 336 page book. Also could you point out specific sentences or paragraphs in the text that are wrong with an accompanying source with a page number of why it is wrong?לילך5 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the spources i have quoted:
 * Britts, Angus (2021): Ceaseless Watch: Australia’s Third-Party Naval Defense, 1919–1942. I have no pages numbers as I can only read the online version in Google Books. It is the chapter titled "The Shadow of Tsushima: January 1901- July 1914.
 * Lambert, Nicholas (1996): Economy or Empire?: The Fleet Unit Concept and he Quest for Collective Security in the Pacific, 1909–14.
 * {{cite book last= Lambert |first= Nicholas |year= 1996 |chapter= Economy or Empire?: The Fleet Unit Concept and the Quest for Collective Security in the Pacific, 1909–14 |editor1-last= Kennedy |editor1-first= Greg |editor2-last= Neilson |editor2-first= Keith |title= Far-flung Lines: Studies in Imperial Defence in Honour of Donald Mackenzie Schurman |location= Abingdon-on-Thames, England |publisher= Routledge |isbn= 9780714642161})
 * The chapter can be found at
 * https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=1b87CVa9xu4C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Lambert+Economy+or+Empire?:+The+Fleet+Unit+Concept+and+the+Quest+for+Collective+Security+in+the+Pacific,+1909%E2%80%9314#v=onepage&q=Lambert%20Economy%20or%20Empire%3F%3A%20The%20Fleet%20Unit%20Concept%20and%20the%20Quest%20for%20Collective%20Security%20in%20the%20Pacific%2C%201909%E2%80%9314&f=false
 * Pelvin, Richard (2016): The Battlecruiser HMS Australia (1911). A chapter in The World of the Battleship: The Design & Careers of Capital Ships of the World's Navies, 1880–1990. I have no pages numbers as I can only read the online version in Google Books, This chapter can be found online at https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/The_World_of_the_Battleship/ZLPNDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+World+of+the+Battleship:+The+Design+%26+Careers+of+Capital+Ships+of+the+World%27s+Navies,+1880%E2%80%931990&printsec=frontcover
 * Wright, Matthew J. (2001): Blue Water Kiwis: New Zealand's Naval Story 1870-2001. See pages 19-37.
 * Wright, Matthew J. (2021): The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire. The pages quoted are given in the reverted 13 April 2022 issue of the HMS New Zealand article. Note that the editor who reverted this edition claimed this book and page numbers quoted did not constitute a valid reference.
 * There are also a number of other articles that can be accessed online that discuss Fishers overhaul of the Royal Navy, the "fleet unit" concept and the original function of the battlecruiser. To keep things simple I haven't included them. My main aim was to present enough evidence to convince people that this article needed some further work. John Prattley (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The impact of the New Zealand offer on a battleship on HMS Australia
There is no mention in the current article that it was in response to New Zealand’s offer on 22 March 1909 that the elements in the Australian public began calling for an offer of their own battleship. The federal government was not supportive and said it would instead be purchasing a fleet of destroyers. It was only in early June 1909 following a change of federal government that Australia offered to fund their own battleship.

Lambert states that it was only after a considerable amount of negotiations that Australia agreed at the conference to accepting a fleet unit, provided their financial contribution to its maintenance was capped at £500,000. Later the Australian parliament agreed to paying the full cost. John Prattley (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is Lambert? What is the source for this?לילך5 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles and books i have referred to are listed at the start of the Acquisition and construction section. For Lambert
 * {{cite book last= Lambert |first= Nicholas |year= 1996 |chapter= Economy or Empire?: The Fleet Unit Concept and the Quest for Collective Security in the Pacific, 1909–14 |editor1-last= Kennedy |editor1-first= Greg |editor2-last= Neilson |editor2-first= Keith |title= Far-flung Lines: Studies in Imperial Defence in Honour of Donald Mackenzie Schurman |location= Abingdon-on-Thames, England |publisher= Routledge |isbn= 9780714642161})
 * The chapter can be found at
 * https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=1b87CVa9xu4C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Lambert+Economy+or+Empire?:+The+Fleet+Unit+Concept+and+the+Quest+for+Collective+Security+in+the+Pacific,+1909%E2%80%9314#v=onepage&q=Lambert%20Economy%20or%20Empire%3F%3A%20The%20Fleet%20Unit%20Concept%20and%20the%20Quest%20for%20Collective%20Security%20in%20the%20Pacific%2C%201909%E2%80%9314&f=false John Prattley (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was New Zealand’s offer changed from a battleship to a battlecruiser
No mention is made in the current article of why New Zealand and Australia’s offers was changed.

Reasons that should be discussed would include the original purpose of battlecruisers, how the fleet units were expected to be used, whether it was expected they would face battleships in the Pacific and how their speed made them a better option for hunting down and destroying at a distance smaller and weaker ships such as the cruisers of the German East Asiatic Squadron and armed merchant cruisers preying on the trade routes. John Prattley (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was New Zealand and Australia offered an older design of battlecruiser
Given that the Indefatigable class design was known to be inferior to the battlecruisers entering service with the German Navy what was this design chosen by the Admiralty for HMS New Zealand.

By the time that HMS New Zealand was being designed the Admiralty was already working on moving to a 13.5-inch main armament for its battleships and battlecruisers, with the final battlecruiser design of the new type approved on 7 June, with the first, HMS Lion laid down later in that same year and completed before New Zealand. She was faster, better armed and armoured that both  New Zealand  and  Australia  and cost £1,965,699, which was within the cap set by the New Zealand government. The new Orion class battleships armed with 13.5-inch guns at £1,855,917 (the first of which was laid down in April 1909 and completed before New Zealand) were also within the cap, which counters a common claim that New Zealand went for a Indefatigable class design as it couldn’t afford a battleship.

Matthew Wright (2021) suggests that possible reasons include that the Admiralty treated them as a pair and were politically not willing to allow Australia and New Zealand to process the latest design, that it would upset the Anglo-Japanese alliance to have such powerful ships stationed in the Pacific, that the 13.5-inch gun was still secret at the time of the public imperial defence conference of 1909 which agreed on the ships deployment and that it eased bottlenecks in the gun making procurement by using the existing 12-inch gun design.

Another argument based on the views expressed in Mathew Seligmann’s ‘The Royal Navy and the German Threat 1901–1914: Admiralty Plans to Protect British Trade in a War against Germany’ is that the Admiralty thought that the design was not only cheaper but also more than adequate for use in the Pacific for hunting down smaller and weaker ships such armed merchant cruisers and thus it was never envisaged that they would be going head to head against capital units in the North Sea. John Prattley (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Construction
Little information is provided in the article on the construction of the ship.

For instance the Controller of the Admiralty John Jellicoe decided to treat the construction of both dominion’s ships as a pair and issued tenders to that effect early in 1910. Harland and Wolff declined to tender while all of other ship builders were only prepared to tender for one vessel. Australia signalled its acceptance first and for unknown reasons agreed to accept that highest of the two successful tenders leaving New Zealand to accept that of Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering.

No mention of the acceptance tests and sea trials and performance

No mention is made of who launched the ships. She was launched by Lady Theresa Ward, the wife of Sir Joseph Ward before a crowd of 8,000. A full description can be found online in various historic New Zealander newspapers. John Prattley (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Name of the ship
While the renaming is discussed in the article on HMS Zealandia there is no mention of the selection of the name of the battlecruiser in this article. There should be.

When it came to naming the new ship the most obvious name was already being used by an existing King Edward VII-class battleship HMS New Zealand. Consideration was given to renaming the older vessel with the names Arawa, Caledonia, Wellington and Maori (which was already being used by a destroyer, and thus would have required a double renaming) before  Zealandia  was eventually decided upon. John Prattley (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The 1913 World Cruise
Despite this being a major event in the history of the ship and a massive event in New Zealand it gets little coverage. It was judged of such importance that the captain was given an independent command and judged such a success that he was knighted upon his return.

The figure quoted of an estimated half a million visitors in New Zealand is incorrect. The figure is either 376,086, 378,068 or 368,118 New Zealanders, depending on the source.

Matthew Wright (2021) states that over the entire duration of the voyage 500,151 people visited her. John Prattley (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Crew
Given that the ship was funded by New Zealand, there is little mention of what presence New Zealanders had among the crew.

Why are the captains who commanded the ship and the admirals who raised their flags on her, not listed? Is it standard practice with warships articles not to include this information?

Information can be found at:

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/H.M.S._New_Zealand_(1911)

https://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishAdmiraltyCaptains.htm John Prattley (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

https://sites.rootsweb.com/~pbtyc/NZ_Xross_Line/Index.html This webpage has a reproduction of the original program for the crossing of the line in 1919. It includes a full list of the names of the officers and crew, who were present.

The cabinet paper that proposed that New Zealand offer one or necessary two battleships
This maybe be of interest.

It was sourced from: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1909-I.2.1.2.1.

This webpage presents all of the governments correspondence, including the telegram with the formal offer to the British government.

This paper confirms that New Zealand was offering one first-class battleship and a possible second, that the prime minister though the country could afford it, that it/they would be controlled by the Admiralty and that it/they were offered well before the Imperial Conference of that year.

Prime Minister's Office,

Memo, for Cabinet.

Wellington, 20th March, 1909.

There is at the present moment a crisis in the affairs of the Empire. The cables recently published regarding the keeping of the British Navy up to a standard that will insure the safety of all parts of the Empire are of a most disquieting nature. So much so that I feel that the time has arrived when New Zealand should do something more than it is now doing to show its practical assistance and support of the British Navy in such a way that the moral effect of New Zealand's co-operation would, quite irrespective of the money value, be of more than ordinary moment.

We are now under an agreement to pay £100,000 a year as a contribution to the British Navy. This is doubtless in the ordinary sense a large sum, but is comparatively small when the tremendous interests at stake are considered, and is nothing approaching what we are reasonably and fairly expected to contribute to help the old land to maintain that which is essential for their and our welfare also—namely, the supremacy of the sea, and which, in my opinion, can only be insured by her having a greatly superior fleet of battleships to that of any other Power.

For your consideration I propose that we should offer to the British Government at least one, and, if necessary, two first-class battleships of the Dreadnought or latest types, and that the offer should be on behalf of New Zealand and at our own cost; the battleships to be. controlled both in peace and war time absolutely by the British Admiralty.

If the offer is accepted by the British Government we must, of course, ask Parliament for authority to raise a special loan, and, in addition, to providing interest upon the amount required for a sinking fund of 1. per cent, for the redemption of the loan At the outside the cost of each of the battleships would be two millions, probably one and three-quarter million each, but in estimating the position I take the former amount as the approximate cost. I have no doubt in my own mind that for such a purpose we could obtain a loan at a rate of 3 per cent, which, with 1 per cent, sinking fund, would amount, if the battleships.cost the full sum of £2,000,000, to £80,000 per annum for one, and if two were obtained, to £160,000 per annum; so that, summed up from the standpoint of the cost to the people of New Zealand, the amount is not large, and if considered as an insurance premium upon the value of the national estate, to say nothing of the value of the private estate of the. people and the keeping open sea routes for the safe conveyance of our produce is anything but a large sum to pay in return for helping to support in a practical way the British Navy, which must be recognised by all as giving us a protection and support against other countries that is really invaluable.

By following the course I am suggesting we would in a most practical and substantial way demonstrate to any. opposing nation of the British Empire that not only have they to count upon the magnificent work the old land in this respect has done in the past by building and maintaining a powerful and unequalled Navy— and will, I am confident, continue to do so in the future —but will also have to reckon in addition the loyal adherence and the practical assistance of her sons in her oversea dominions, and the moral effect of this undertaking would, in my opinion, have a great and far-reaching influence. It would proclaim to the world that the oversea dominions, gradually growing into nationhood, were prepared to help to preserve the power and greatness of the Empire, which for the best part of a century, at comparatively no cost to us, has given us that protection without which that independence and security to our commerce under the British flag would have been impossible in the absence of the British Navy.

Whatever is done should be done at once, and if Cabinet agrees to my proposal, I would transmit it through the Governor to the British Government without delay. The responsibility devolving upon the Government in taking this action is a great one, the refusal of Parliament tosanction it involving as it would the retirement of the Government or an appeal to the people; but I feel confident that the loyalty of the people of New Zealand, voicing itself through their representatives in Parliament, will indorse the action of the Government.

The situation in England to-day is one of tension and serious apprehension, and both in the eyes of England and in the eyes of Europe a prompt and generous assistance would have, in addition to its material value, a moral effect which cannot be over-estimated.

(Signed) J. G. Ward.

In Cabinet. 22nd March, 1909.

The Government to offer to defray the cost of the immediate building and arming of one firstclass battleship of the latest type, and if subsequent events show it to be necessary, will provide the cost of a second warship of the same type.

(Signed) J. Hislop. Acting-Secretary. John Prattley (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Details on the 1913 cruise
That's an awful amount of wordage on the cruise and rather dominates the article now. Cut out a lot of the unnecessary details like dates of port visits, coal tonnages and ships that the battlecruiser met during her voyage and summarize the voyage into a couple of paragraphs, stuff that a print encyclopedia would consider important enough for inclusion. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * i feel that a detailed description of the 1913 is appropriate as it describes a significant 9 month long period in the life of the ship, describes the effect required for a coal powered dreadnought to sail around the world (which helps explain the number of deserters from what appears to be the boiler room) and also attempts to capture the cultural impact this voyage had on the citizens of New Zealand.
 * There already exists a category called Category:Circumnavigations which has 23 entries. Among them are; Circumnavigations of Manhattan (around the island), Francis Drake's circumnavigation, 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation, First Indian circumnavigation, Operation Power Flite (first by a B-52).
 * Since this as the first circumnavigation by a ship of the dreadnought era perhaps we could separate the voyage out into its own dedicated article and just leave a summary and link behind in the main article. Would this be a solution and would it be accepted, by whoever approves new articles? John Prattley (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds best.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm currently work on a standalone article which will strip out all but a summary of circumnavigation, I propose to call it "HMS New Zealand’s 1913 circumnavigation". It should be ready in a day or two. John Prattley (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Cost of the ship
Page 109 of R. A. Burt’s “British Battleships of World War One”  (2012 edition) states that the cost was £1,684,990 plus another £98,200 for the guns. This gives a total capital cost of £1,783,190.

Page 230 of Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton’s “The Battleship Builders – Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships” (2013) quotes a cost of £1,795,068.

The New Zealand Naval Museum states a cost of £1,706,000 but they don’t state whether it was the capital or total cost. See https://navymuseum.co.nz/explore/by-collections/ships/new-zealand-hms/

Pages 214 and 215 of Matthew Wright's 2021 book "The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire" states the capital cost was £1,698,152, 6 shillings and 2 pence to construct  New Zealand . To this amount was added £64,148, 1 shilling and 11 pence for the cost of raising the loans and £32,867, 19 shillings and 9 pence for the cost of redemptions and conversions, which gave a total cost of £1,795,169, 4 shillings and 11 pence.

I have corresponded with Matthew and he has confirmed that his figures are sourced from the original files in the New Zealand government archives.

He commented that Burt's purchase figure for the guns is odd, as Archives New Zealand file R3485891 clearly show that the 12-inch guns for HMS New Zealand and HMAS Australia, eight each plus three spares each, 22 in all, were purchased as a contracted job lot for £220,990 split between the two governments.

He doesn't have full details of the costs that the Admiralty absorbed, as these were not stated in the accounts, but they would have been relatively minor in respect to the value of the contract. He also commented that the builders invoiced the Admiralty incrementally for components as construction proceeded and that as a result the accounts held in Archives New Zealand are highly detailed.

Therefore we have to assume that the values stated by Burt, Johnston/Buxton and the museum are either the tendered estimates or incorrect with regards to the capital cost charged to the New Zealand government.

John Prattley (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we just be up front and state that sources differ as to the cost - all these sources are high quality sources that will be looking at primary documents like ship's covers etc - and they all come up with virtually the same number.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Revenue from the scrapping of the ship
There are two values given in publications for the the amount of money that the New Zealand Government received from the scrapping of the ship:

£20,000. Stated by Matthew Wright (2021) "The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire".

£21,000. Stated by Aidan Dobson (2022) "Warship Gallery: The Scrapping of HMS Agincourt, New Zealand, Princess Royal at Rosyth, 1923—1925".

Matthew has been in touch and has sent me a copy of a New Zealand government memo to the Secretary of the Treasury that clearly states that it was £20,000. Therefore I have revised the article to state only his value. John Prattley (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the British Navy Estimates for 1923-1924 and Appropriation Account for Navy Services in 1924-1925 specifically state that the New Zealand government was refunded £21,000. It's a pity that Wright didn't use the aforementioned memo as a reference for the claim in his book rather than a yearbook. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)