A fact from Novara-class cruiser appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 July 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
I apologize for taking this long! RL has been busy. This is a really interesting article! I've cleaned up a couple of places where commas were out of place and fixed some typos. See my edits here.
In particular would you look at the action of 31 May 1916. I was very confused by this. It read like the ships were working against German and AH effort, rather than for them. auntieruth(talk)16:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at your edits. I have to say I agree with them. Thanks for the typo fixes as well. I also reworded the language for the action in May 1916 to make it clear who was on what side.—White ShadowsLet’s Talk04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that! I'm glad they worked, and your edit on the action of May 1916 made it much clearer. I'll pass this now, and if you're taking this further, you might add a line one whose drifters those were auntieruth(talk)15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know you think that. As locations, these are classic examples of overlinking though. There is also WP:EGG to consider. What is the benefit to the reader of a link like France on an article about a ship? --John (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because France literally owned one of the ships. By that same logic, why should we link Austria-Hungary in any article about a ship from this class? That doesn't seem like a strong argument at all in favor of de-linking the nations involved here under WP:OVERLINK. Again, it's not like I'm lazily asking that we link France or Italy. I'm asking we link to the nations of the historical period who physically owned the ships and operated them. I don't see at all how WP:OVERLINK applies here.--White ShadowsLet’s Talk15:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Austria-Hungary I would leave linked because it is no longer a country. France and Italy (and Britain) are just links to previous "versions" of the existing and very commonly known countries, which is exactly the sort of thing OVERLINK is designed to prevent. Links like these are of no use to our readers, and may distract them from useful links, which is why they are deprecated. --John (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there was something about the French Third Republic specifically that was relevant to the acquisition of the ship (for instance, say there was a hypothetical arms deal that was rejected by the 4th republic but approved by the 5th under de Gaulle), I would leave this sort of link out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A number of articles, such as the general one on the Austro-Hungarian navy and that on the Durazzo action, describe these ships as having 4" guns. Janes Fighting Ships indicate that 100mm (3.9"), as given here, is the accurate calibre. And it doesn't seem like the Austrian navy ever used 4" guns. There seems to be a small group of editors who insist on altering details and designations of non-British ships to what would be Royal Navy standard at the expense of accuracy. And then claiming "this is the English Wikipedia" to justify themselves. Even if reputable Anglophone sources contradict them. I'll fix these things if there isn't a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:147B:E400:A90D:E2CA:405B:A94F (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article already says "9 × 10 cm (3.9 in) guns" If you have an issue on another article, either make a change there or discuss it on the talk page for that article.
.jpg)
