Talk:Trafalgar-class ironclad

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Freeboard, etc.[edit]

Toddy1 just undid my edit here. Some of this is probably a matter of taste, but some of the restored version is simply wrong. In "They were the last class of low freeboard battleships built for the Royal Navy. They had favoured this design for several years because they felt that it reduced the size of the target that would be hit by gunfire in a battle and the smaller hull area allowed thicker armour" the "they" in the second sentence grammatically refers to the "they" in the first sentence, not to the Royal Navy (also note that "Royal Navy" is singular, while "they" is plural). Secondly, there is no guarantee that gunfire would hit anything in a battle, so the indicative mode is wrong, and the the subjunctive is required. However, I'll rephrase that, using the more idiomatic "presents a smaller target". Please discuss before reverting again. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit had a verb without a subject. This one does not.
I have changed "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships" to "The Trafalgars were the penultimate low freeboard battleships". I don't really want to get into arguments about whether a class of one, is a class. But a normal reader might easily conclude that if the Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships, the RN did not order any more low freeboard battleships after them, which was not the case.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the missing "it" while editing the new version. No worries. I'm not quite clear about the "penultimate", though. Do you refer to the fact that Sans Pareil was commissioned after Trafalgar? I'm not aware of any later low-freeboard design. If it does refer to Sans Pareil, why not make this explicit? E.g. "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships designed for the Royal Navy", or, if you want to give more information, "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships designed for the Royal Navy, although, due to slower construction, HMS Sans Pareil was the last ship of this type commissioned" ? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any later low-freeboard design - you have forgotten the Hood.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So what about "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships designed for the Royal Navy, although the 1891 Hood was build to a low-freeboard variant of the Royal Sovereign-class"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gets us into arguments about whether a class of one, is a class. Please, let us not go there. It is not fruitful. I have modified the last paragraph of the introduction to make life clearer.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar & the last sequel[edit]

Not sure if it's worthy of adding, or qualifies as reliable, but this site quotes the Admiralty's Parliamentary Secretary as saying Trafalgars would be "the last ironclads of this type that will ever be built by this or any other country." TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Not watching this page... ;p)[reply]