Talk:Valiant-class submarine

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Does the reference to '12,000 miles' actually mean 'nautical miles'?
Bobblewik (talk) 12:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page numbers in references

I changed multiple references with embedded page numbers to refer to a single entry, with the page number shown with the reference number in the text, using the rp template. This has the advantages of having a single entry in the reference section rather than multiple entries identical except for page numbers; and showing in the text that the references are to different pages of the same book. No information is lost: the page number is displayed with the reference. This was reverted, once with the (false) claim that the page numbers had been deleted, then with the gnomic comment "no you have not done it correctly". What is claimed to be the correct way to use this template? To see the article with the rp templated references, seek string "standardised" here and look at the next few lines, where the reference is invoked twice. Pol098 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I had assumed that you were trying but failing to use a template that would put the page number in the reference in the standard style. I assumed that as long as you knew that what you had done had failed, you would eventually figure out how to use the template. This was why I reverted you, leaving helpful comments in the edit summary.

I see now that I was wrong. What you were doing was to impose a different (parenthetical) style of doing citations. It is probably not a good idea to use a totally different style of citations for some references but not for all. Indeed using one that is completely alien to most readers is probably not a good idea either.

I have fixed the trivial problem that you were so concerned with, preserving the citation style used in this and most other articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked the book that was referenced. The reference to page 192 of The End Of An Era: The Memoirs Of a Naval Constructor was wrong - it was about the Resolution class. I have moved it to the page on the Resolutions.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two or five boats of the class?

According to Fontenoy's "Submarines: An Illustrated History of Their Impact" p.373, all 3 units of Churchill class - according to Wikipedia's article Churchill class submarine - were simply Valiant-class ships. HMS Courageous just received an updated sonar outfit and the other boats were subsequently refitted to that standard, but they were still Valliant class submarines - all five boats of Valliant class. Not 2 as this article says. --Matrek (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is discussed at Talk:Churchill class submarine#Churchill class or still Valiant class?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]