French battleship Courbet (1911) is a
featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
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
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
Never seen them described that way and they are not what is normaly meant by Manned torpedo. Technicaly they are extemely low freeboard torpedo boats but there has to be a better description.
Considering that they were built by modifying a torpedo to carry another torpedo, I'm comfortable calling them a manned torpedo. I really don't care that they were incapable of submerging.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Parsons being the designer of the steam turbines, how is this any different than "General electric refrigerator"? Both of which would have their own link.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
12:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:SEAOFBLUE states "[w]hen possible", and makes three suggestions for avoiding "placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link", as is done with '
Parsonssteam turbine'. So, narrowly, and IMO, it is in compliance with the MoS. However, if a formulation which was not unduly clumsy and which avoided the conjunction were offered then the emphasis, IMO, would be on the editor preferring '
Parsonssteam turbine' to explain why it should be retained.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)reply
My understanding of SEAOFBLUE is that it has suggested avoiding three links in sequence - two links should be fine. I don't think Hohum's suggestion works, as (at least to me), it implies that Parsons built the turbines for Courbet.
Parsecboy (
talk)
15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The article WW I of WIKIPEDIA says that Germany declared war to France on 3 august, while this article states that France declared war to Germany on 2 august. pietro
151.29.185.59 (
talk)
09:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply