Talk:Action off Lerwick

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Action off Lerwick. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110228051018/http://www.hmsstrongbow.org.uk:80/sinking.htm to http://www.hmsstrongbow.org.uk/sinking.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Adding detail and citations from printed sources.Keith-264 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Added finished revision (except for the main bit, still unfinished) from the previous abortive pasting. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pulled my finger out and finished the revision. Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Merchant ships in this action

I feel strongly that the numbers of merchant ships involved and lost should be included in the orders of battle in this article (infobox and body). They were engaged as well as the naval vessels, and according to the article their casualties are included in the totals. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 05:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I wish I knew what they were, I've looked for a Great War convoy database to no avail. Helas Keith-264 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. What I mean is, add "12 merchant colliers" or "3 British, 9 neutral merchant colliers" to the OB, also noting that 9 neutral ships were sunk. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@RobDuch: found a source, Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Expanded and favoured newer source over older accounts. Keith-264 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

I put British anti-U-boat operations, 1917, 1.3.1 Net mine barrage and 1.3.2 Coast and river mining in a while ago because they are interesting, add some context and because the article was rather thin without them. Now I wonder if these sections don't overbalance the article somewhat, after the additions from Dunn (2019). What do the page watchers think? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the title. Action seems more military than naval (Affair, Action, Battle, Campaign....) OH N V has The Scandinavian Convoy and the Convoy System, October 1917 and The Second Attack on the Scandinavian Convoy, December, 11-12 1917. Marder has The Incident of 17 October and The Second Convoy Incident. Keith-264 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I've revised my revision and expansion and sorted out the imbalance in the narrative. Toodle pip! Keith-264 (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)