Talk:Zara-class cruiser

Factcheck.com
Stephen, p.69, puts Zara as "completed" 21 October 1931; am I taking liberties saying "commissioned"? Also, Stephen puts draft at 19 ft 5 in, presumably normal or standard; length at 557 ft, presumably waterline; & speed at 32 design, 33-35 trials, 29 normal at sea. Can somebody with better sources confirm/refute? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  20:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zara-class cruiser. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070612040319/http://regiamarina.net:80/arsenals/ships_it/cruisers_heavy/crui_heavy_us.htm to http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/ships_it/cruisers_heavy/crui_heavy_us.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Names of ships
hi! Please check out what's common standard on Wikipedia: "Etymology" or "Name" is usually the first paragraph, right after the lead - and for a good reason! Names almost always have great significance, and here too. Btw, I arrived on this page while researching for Konrad Grünenberg's 1487 drawings of Zara/Zadar! Reunited Italy had a vested interest in claiming the cities of the eastern Adriatic coast, long held or dominated by Venice or Genoa, also by using their Italian (as opposed to Croatian) names, and in a military context like here, this is quite significant.

Also formally, there is no justification whatsoever in dealing with the names under "Design". But that is secondary. I hope you can agree with the logic of my edit, which it based on both substance and form. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to write all articles exactly the same. Full stop. And there are plenty of reasons why they shouldn't be written the same way. You ought to know this, given how long you've been around.
 * Presenting the naming reasoning behind the four ships first, before anything else, is putting WP:UNDUE prominence on it. We also don't need a whole new subsection for a sentence or two. This is bad article writing. Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. Let's invite arbiters. Arminden (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Frankly, you're wrong, and your attitude here is appalling given the fact that you're not a newbie. But go ahead, waste both of our time with further discussion to confirm that you're wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

hi! I see that you have contributed a great deal to articles concerning Dalmatia and the Italian Navy. Would you be so kind as to take a look at the issue at hand here and help deciding whether dealing with the names chosen for the Zara-class of cruiser ships deserves to be dealt with in a dedicated [|"Name" paragraph], or to be left as a one-sentence mention in the "Design" paragraph? You can of course invite other colleagues which you consider might bring a relevant opinion into the discussion. Thank you! Cheers and stay well, Arminden (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, did you bother to look at those editors' activity before you pinged them? Nigel is the only one still editing, and R-41 was indeffed in 2013. Why don't you post a message at a relevant Wikiproject like WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I am not primarily interested in warships, but very much so in history. I've spent as much time as I had available on this topic, incl. on finding those names. If you are serious about upkeeping the quality of the article, then please do ping them yourself and ask for their opinion. So far, I can only see an ego problem here, and I have no time for that. So, it's up to you. Stay well, Arminden (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no point in pinging any of them besides Nigel, as they aren't active editors anymore - I'd have thought it was an obvious thing to check if you're looking to solicit opinions. You also don't need to ping me - I have the article watchlisted, I will see your comments. Your time probably would have been better spent reviewing any of the articles in Category:FA-Class_Ships_articles to see what standard practice in this area is. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't possibly imagine that you don't get my point. If a German warship class is called Hamburg, there's no historical implication (irredentist or otherwise). If it's Lothringen or Danzig in 1905, no problem; in 1935, the League of Nations needs to deal with it and does - nothing; in 2020, Merkel needs to step down in disgrace. But if you don't WANT to grasp the obvious, there's nothing I can do. Arminden (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One wonders who you think controlled the four cities in the late 1920s and early 1930s when these ships were built, if that's the logic you're relying upon... Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Belated response tothe ping - Firstly, I personally wouldn't expect naming to be a stand-aone section at the start of the article - treat it as part ofone of the sections or as a footnote. Secondly, the article can only sensibly discuss the implications of the names if we can find WP:RS that talks about the names - otherwise we are indulging in Original Research Note that one of the References currently used to source the naming (i.e. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922–1946) doesn't mention the fact that they were named after ex-Austrian cities.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comment, Nigel. As an aside, only Brescia covers the naming - Conway's covers other material in the paragraph. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

armoured belt
Of what steel was the belt made? Was it Krupp cemented steel ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)