Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

References section title
Please let's reach a consensus to change wrong title "Footnotes" in the section where references are listed. You can see format I want to introduce (one standard section "References" that contains subsection "Cited bibliography"). "Footnotes" is misleading because those are not explanatory notes (footnotes) but normal references in shortened sfn/harvnb format. My revision respects MOS:FNNR, current one does not because we do not have shortened citation footnotes but shortened citations/references themselves (not any footnotes about or additional to citations). --Obsuser (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From MOS:FNNR: "Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose". Also from MOS:FNNR "If multiple sections are wanted, then some possibilities include: For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes" and For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited"." In this case, I have used multiple sections (which is explicitly allowed), and Notes is used for the explanatory footnote, Footnotes is used for the shortened footnotes (in sfn format), and References is used for the full citations of the references used, and to which the sfns point. The current layout is entirely within the MOS on this topic, so just drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are not footnotes as such but references. No sticks raisen, normal discussion. --Obsuser (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The set-up here is completely MOS compliant. I have quoted the MOS to show this. I fail to see why you persist with this pointless discussion. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles with this exact set-up, dozens of which are FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

In German hands
According to Gröner, the Germans didn't turn over T 7 to the Croats until 17 June 1944. Prior to that she had been redesignated as TA 34, although I don't know off hand if they actually used her for anything. You should double check this against Freivogel's books. It seems pretty clear to me that the older sources for the Croat Navy's ships and operations are misleading at best, based on this and the misinformation about Niobe/Dalmajica, and you'll need to update the relevant articles.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)