Talk:HMS Furious (47)

Significance

Dreadnought changed battleship design so much, all similar ships were called dreadnoughts. When Britain commissioned her first nuclear submarine, in recognition of how things changed with her in service, she was named Dreadnought. Yet Furious, which put BBs in eclipse as surely as Dreadnought, didn't get that honor. Wonder why...? Trekphiler 15:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Because when she was named she was just an ordinary cruiser. Also, early aircraft carriers were experimental and unproven. Jason404 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

5½ inch guns

Two five and a half inch guns (nos 38 and 42) from HMS Furious were deployed in the Faroe Islands during WWII. But I do not know when they were removed from the ship, so I don't know where to place this information in the article. Abu ari 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You know its 2011 and I was just reading the same thing regarding the Skansin fortress. The guns from this ship were installed there during WII above the capital of the islands, and unlike the ship, are still there today. However when I checked this article there is no mention. This seems like a reliable source [1]. But like the poster four years ago where should it be added? Or will it be another four years?

This article is destined for FAC eventually and Navweps.com isn't highly reliable enough to pass muster at that level. Find me a printed source or other WP:RS and I'll add it in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo

Could this be mentioned in here? (Msrasnw (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Removal of references

Sturmvogel 66, just a query, why did you remove the two references I placed in the article? I was adding new information, not contained within the previous version and providing references to back it up. Unless you can provide assurance that all the new information is already in the existing refs (I don't have those ones or I would check myself), please restore them. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed them because they actually didn't add any new information, but merely duplicated the original cites. Where you did add new info, like the ski-ramp for the Barracudas, I left them intact. Likewise, I moved Chesneau to further reading, because it wasn't needed to confirm the location of the charthouse, which was already cited, but it might be something people might want to consult. I appreciate your helpfulness in cleaning up some of the problems raised during the FAC, but adding new material, etc. during a FAC is not recommended because cite formats and the like have to be consistent, something you didn't notice when adding your info, so I had to clean up behind you. Your material didn't need that much work, but the little things like parentheses around the date, or lack thereof, for authors with multiple titles in the bibliography, matter at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to quibble, but I also added the information about the navigating position at the starboard side of the forward edge of the flight deck, which came out of Chesneau, can you confirm that that information is also in the cite you left? I have only had a limited amount of time and was intending to attend to the parenthesis issue after asking about whether to use them or not - I usually do - but that is a moot point now. Regardless, I'm fine with their removal. OTOH, I think you might try to be a little more polite, I do not appreciate your statement that you "had to clean up behind" me. I am interested in this article passing its FAC as much as you are and have devoted what time I have had and using the resources available to me to the task. I have even created a couple of articles as well to remove some red links, did you notice that? This is a collaborative effort, please keep that in mind. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Quibble away; I'd missed the fact that you'd added that bit, so I've restored the Chesneau cite. You were not supposed to appreciate the "clean up behind me" remark; judging by your actions to that point, you were the type of editor who is knowledgeable on the topic, but fairly ignorant of the persnickety requirements for cite and bibliographic formats in an FA-class article because you'd provided the page count in the full reference to Chesneau (unnecessary in books), failed to notice the parentheses were missing for the books by Burt, and used a hyphen in page ranges. And that's the kind of help that you don't want at FAC; it's fine before or after, but not during because it must be immediately cleaned up in order for the article to be promoted. I didn't notice that you'd created several articles to eliminate redlinks because I don't care if redlinks are in an article or not unless it hurts a reader's comprehension not to have more information available, which wasn't the case here. All I saw was that there were still redlinks in the article, not that there were fewer of them. I suppose that I come across as unappreciative about eliminating redlinks, but I don't really regard that as a big deal as I've created a lot of them myself and know exactly what's involved.

I'm well aware that I don't own this article, but I am responsible for getting it promoted since I nominated it and some of your additional material required my time to fix; I had no idea if you were even cognizant of the problems you were causing and did not know if you could or would fix them. In short, your timing was inauspicious. I wouldn't have been irritated if you made your changes either before or after the FAC when there is no time pressure. As it was... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A simple request pointing out the issues would have sufficed, I am quite happy to abide by the local style in an article and make whatever changes are required. I still don't appreciate your tone. You have nominated the article, but you are not responsible for its promotion - it is still a collaborative effort. In the last little while I have made quite a few changes to the prose, expanding on details chasing up references etc. You talk about time pressure, yet before today you had not edited the article since 16 August, more than a month ago. It looked rather like you had abandoned the article, leaving the fixing of the few items picked up on the FAC to someone else. I and a few others stepped into the breach and today I find you blithely undoing some of the work without even the courtesy of discussing the matter.

If there is a time pressure issue, perhaps you should not have nominated the article when you did if you did not have the time to make the necessary changes.

As for reference styles, I am more used to the style used in scientific papers where the page count of books is often included. There is no right or wrong way to do it and you do not need to make snide comments about it, simply removing the page count if you don't think it was necessary for consistency here, with an appropriate edit summary would have been fine, just as I am quite happy about removing the parentheses.

If you thought I was not "cognizant of the problems" I was allegedly causing, why did you not post something on this talk page? It was fairly obvious that I have been watching this page and my most recent edits were today, so you were not likely to have a wait a long time for a reply.

Finally, using terms like "the type of editor" and "fairly ignorant" when referring to other editors borders on a personal attack I respectfully request that you strike those comments. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Furious (47). 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/20110219210646/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/history/ships/hms-furious-1917/index.htm to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/history/ships/hms-furious-1917/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041018122325/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-f/furis-6.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-f/furis-6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A medal from HMS FURIOUS

I have found a medal for boxing 1919 from HMS furious. I am just curious to know which member of my family this belonged to. This has been passed down to me along with other medals. I lost my parents when i was young so have not been able to form a history.

regards

Tina Wright nee Devine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.83.210 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)