Talk:List of battleships of France

Suggestions for improving the article
Copied from User talk:Toddy1

Good work! Very thorough and just the kind of treatment those list articles need. I can see only two ways of improving it. First when talking about 'lozenge' or 'pre-dreadnought' layout there should be something to explain to the reader what that means - whether it's a wikilink, reference or parenthesis. Secondly, some of the references probably need page references. I wouldn't say this is necessary for the bulk of them - if you are referencing to (say) Conway's where every ship or class has an article and those articles are all comprehensively indexed, there is no need for a page number. However you might think about whether this applies to every statement, or every source, you have referenced. Thanks a lot for your work! The Land (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:The ed17 You added the above tag to List of battleships of France. Was there a reason for this? There is a reference for every ship listed. The brief introduction at the top has some references, but is mainly justified by the referenced lists of ships. It is difficult to understand what cleaning up is possible.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleanup tag removed. Washburn mav (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. Since it is a list, rather than a proper article, it will inevitably look different. The Land (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I apoligize--I aught to have used ...I only meant that the introduction should be modified, and I didn't want to do it becasue I didn't know where that information should go. I just did not think that the intro looks right...if I had taken more time, maybe I would not have done that.  the_ed  17  02:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction. The introduction is not meant to be a history of the development of French armoured battleships. However some introduction is necessary:
 * to explain that there were patterns of development (i.e. it is more than a 'phonebook' for battleships),
 * because most people have no idea how the 'stationnairre' (2nd class) ships fitted in and why they stopped building them
 * to explain about the coastal service ships.

The Land has suggested that something should be written explaining the difference between the standard 'pre-dreadnought' layout and the rival lozenge layout for battleships. (Note that lozenge was a contemporary term, whilst 'pre-dreadnought' was not.) I agree that this would be desirable - it would be best done as wikilinks to an article on battleship development that discussed the issues of 1880s/90s battleship design.

If you have ideas about the introduction, why not sketch them out here. Other people can slot in the facts--Toddy1 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are all of these ships considered battleships?
First off, this is a fantastic article and is very helpful and well laid out, making this a concern more of technicality and definition.

For example, the ships before Amiral Duperré are confusingly labeled (in their own articles) as either ironclads, ironclad battleships, ironclad corvettes, or even ironclad armored frigates. I can see how the lines would blur in defining corvettes versus frigates, but separating these vessels from battleships should be easy, right? The Magenta-class is defined as a broadside ironclad, and is a two-deck vessel with a 50-gun broadside. These ships are seemingly more fitted to the role of "battleship" than the Provence-class following it, which are defined as "armored frigates" and carry around half the guns as the Magenta-class as well as being a single-deck vessel. I see the sense in grouping them together by the design of "broadside ironclads" as both ships are ironclads that rely on a broadside-fitted armament, but are still widely different vessels in size, design, and doctrinal use. Much akin to the difference between assault rifles and battle rifles, maybe?

To compare, there is no list of battleships of Britain, instead there are two lists; List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy, and List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy. The former starts the list with the Royal Sovereign-class launched in 1891, defined as a pre-dreadnought in name, separated by her ironclad predecessors only by her use of steel armor-- thus many "pre-dreadnought" vessels like the Trafalgar- and Admiral-class battleships of very similar design to the Royal Sovereign are omitted. In this case we have multiple lists instead of the one comprehensive timeline with our List of battleships of France. However, this is besides the point.

Would it be better to separate the non-battleship vessels like Provence and Alma into their own list with other frigate/corvette type vessels belonging to France? I quite like being able to follow the development from Gloire to Richlieu despite Gloire only being considered as an armored frigate. Another thing to consider is that non-battleship vessels such as La Galissonnière serving in the place of heavier ships as flagships of fleet-sized units. But here's me in a conflict of interest circle. I understand the composition and order of the list, but naming it "List of battleships" is slightly misleading, especially for those earlier vessels. It's likely I only write this because I can't come up with a more fitting name that wouldn't make the article harder to find with an obscure name. Voyageur895 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bretagne (1916) - raster.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * French battleship Richelieu colorized.jpg