This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Tiger (1913) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | HMS Tiger (1913) 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | HMS Tiger (1913) is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User talk:Parsecboy Thanks for adding "primarily from SMS Moltke, who scored 13 of those 15 hits." to the page on HMS Tiger (1913). However what was the source for this?
There is a big problem with many of these pages containing unsourced material. This would gradually be fixed if when people made additions they footnoted them giving the source. <ref>Author, ''Name of Source'', page number</ref> -- Toddy1 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that changed World War One into First World War. The reason for this is that there was already a wikilink in the introduction to World War I.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I read here Turkey bought some ex-Tiger 13.5s. Can anybody confirm? Worth a mention? (I'd also wonder what price was paid...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I recognize barbette is technically correct. However, "turret" is by far the more common usage, especially in position references. Should it be changed back? Is there a WP-standard usage? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm led to understand that all later 13.5" BB/BC used the (H) version of the gun (1400lb rather than 1250lb shell) - isn't this also the case with Tiger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.192.207.179 ( talk) 09:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Found this today Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The 'Armament' subsection begins "Tiger mounted eight 45-calibre BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns in four twin hydraulically powered turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'Y' from front to rear." yet there are six references to an 'X' turret or barbette throughout the article. How should this inconsistency be resolved? 1RM ( talk) 07:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
In this: After the Battle of Coronel and the deployment of three battlecruisers to hunt for the German East Asia Squadron, Tiger was ordered to cut short her firing trials off Berehaven[34] and was commissioned into the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (1st BCS) two months later, on 3 October,[31] and began trials and working up.
Battle of Coronel was 1 November, so two month later is January, or I miss something? Demostene119 ( talk) 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Tiger was commissioned for the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (1st BCS) on 3 October.[31] After the Battle of Coronel and the deployment of three battlecruisers to hunt for the German East Asia Squadron, Tiger was ordered to cut short her firing trials off Berehaven[34] and began trials and working up. Demostene119 ( talk) 15:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Here it is stated that the Tiger was 704 feet long and was 4 feet longer than the Queen Mary. Yet the entry about the Queen Mary gives a length of 703 feet for that ship. These figures don't add up, so what is correct? Tupelo the typo fixer ( talk) 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that this article wasn't written using the accepted 24-hour military time? Or does the British military use 12-hour time for their documents? Magus732 ( talk) 21:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Would it be more reasonable to place the paragraph discussing the procurement, construction programme and authorisation of Tiger, along with the discussion of the potentially erroneous claims of a never-built-but-'considered' sister ship, in its own separate section (perhaps 'Planning & Authorisation'?) rather than in 'Design & description', since it has nothing to with the details of the ship itself, but rather discusses matters of procurement strategy instead. Even if it remains in the section, should it be at the start of it? Again, it is not a matter of the ship's architectural detailing or other characteristics and seems distracting & off-topic where it is. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D98D:2F68:431A:BB60 ( talk) 02:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Links to the wrong Henry Pelly, Henry Carstairs Pelly /info/en/?search=Sir_Henry_Pelly,_3rd_Baronet (1844-1877), not the right one, Admiral Sir Henry Bertram Pelly (1867-1942) http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Henry_Bertram_Pelly
I'm not feeling well & can't remember how to add an external link, so it'd be nice if someone fixed it. Pjirving ( talk) 11:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)