Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

I created my first Wikipedia article

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

Featuring, of course, the fat British light cruiser Minotaur; more specifically, one of the 1947 designs that we have in-game.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur-class_cruiser_(1947)

 

If anyone want to help me improve it, feel free to do so.

 

EDIT: I've worked on some more Wikipedia articles. I've largely written the armor section for the Montana article, and also revised the history and design section to be more accurate and get rid of most of the myths and misconceptions that were still on there. I've also fixed up the Iowa article, adding a small historical background section and substantially revising the armor section. I also created a new article about the 18"/48 cal gun and added more information to Special Treatment Steel.

I hope all these changes will give readers a more complete and accurate picture.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles

Nice!

 

Out of curiosity, was the class really to be called the Minotaur-class? I had thought that was something WG came up with,but ultimately I'm not to familiar with the later British CL projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles

I've been trawling through the WoWs wiki and fixing up the RN ships historical sections, Minotaur being the first of the CLs I did (Still got tiers 1 to 4 to do). Good to see the articles making their way to mainstream wikipedia too, good job!

5 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Nice!

 

Out of curiosity, was the class really to be called the Minotaur-class? I had thought that was something WG came up with,but ultimately I'm not to familiar with the later British CL projects.

To the best of my knowledge, the Minotaur (or Design Z) set of designs have always been referred to as the Minotaur class from all the sources I have seen, in the same way Design Y gained the overall name Neptune by 1946. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
11 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Nice!

 

Out of curiosity, was the class really to be called the Minotaur-class? I had thought that was something WG came up with,but ultimately I'm not to familiar with the later British CL projects.

Yes, and to paraphrase Norman Friedman, Design Z was given the name Minotaur to distinguish it from Design Y, which was named Neptune. Design Z basically replaced Design Y in 1946/7 and the class had the same planned names. That being said, I think the Minotaur in game isn't actually the main design, but one of the smaller Design Z alternatives, which the evidence pointing to Design ZA due to the two forward turrets being mounted at the same level rather than superfiring. For fun I listed both of their characteristics in the Wikipedia article, pulled from Friedman of course.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

To make an additional comment about how the in-game Minotaur relates to the historical designs, it appears that WG used the configuration of Design ZA (i.e. only the third turret superfiring rather than all turrets superfiring), but upscaled it to the length and displacement of Design Z. The actual Design ZA would be noticeably shorter and has lower displacement than even the Baltimore, while the in-game health of the Minotaur appears to reflect that of Design Z's displacement (i.e. only very slightly less than Neptune). This then raises the question of why WG didn't just use the actual Design Z rather than the smaller alternative. Would having all three front turrets superfiring be all that overpowered?

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
6 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

To make an additional comment about how the in-game Minotaur relates to the historical designs, it appears that WG used the configuration of Design ZA (i.e. only the third turret superfiring rather than all turrets superfiring), but upscaled it to the length and displacement of Design Z. The actual Design ZA would be noticeably shorter and has lower displacement than even the Baltimore, while the in-game health of the Minotaur appears to reflect that of Design Z's displacement (i.e. only very slightly less than Neptune). This then raises the question of why WG didn't just use the actual Design Z rather than the smaller alternative. Would having all three front turrets superfiring be all that overpowered?

I don't really know about the length of Minotaur in game, but it seems to fit with that of ZA. The displacement seems to correlate to a potential deep load of ZA, and gamemodels3d lists it as 16,970t (at least on Norma anyway), which is standard for a top hull. Although the commonly used formula I have seems a bit borked with it, though the same goes for Baltimore. Might just be a WG applied buff, unless Baltimore weighs in less than 16,970 in game.

I would presume WG chose ZA because it would be an improvement over Neptune in concealment and maneuverability, while the larger / as cancelled Z4C (and previously 'sketch D') might not provide the same feel of an upgrade, despite the 3 super-firing turrets forward. Probably comes about because Neptune is a tier 10 candidate in it's own right with her firepower. At least Design Y is anyway, a few other smaller sketches might be a good fit for tier 9 beneath Y. Given that I didn't consider Neptune/Y a tier 9, Z4C as cancelled seemed fit to be a tier 10 to me, if smaller designs like Z2 are the tier 9 and co.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
On 4/16/2018 at 3:35 PM, Trainspite said:

I don't really know about the length of Minotaur in game, but it seems to fit with that of ZA. The displacement seems to correlate to a potential deep load of ZA, and gamemodels3d lists it as 16,970t (at least on Norma anyway), which is standard for a top hull. Although the commonly used formula I have seems a bit borked with it, though the same goes for Baltimore. Might just be a WG applied buff, unless Baltimore weighs in less than 16,970 in game.

I would presume WG chose ZA because it would be an improvement over Neptune in concealment and maneuverability, while the larger / as cancelled Z4C (and previously 'sketch D') might not provide the same feel of an upgrade, despite the 3 super-firing turrets forward. Probably comes about because Neptune is a tier 10 candidate in it's own right with her firepower. At least Design Y is anyway, a few other smaller sketches might be a good fit for tier 9 beneath Y. Given that I didn't consider Neptune/Y a tier 9, Z4C as cancelled seemed fit to be a tier 10 to me, if smaller designs like Z2 are the tier 9 and co.

 

I know that there are exceptions when it comes to displacement and HP in game, the most obvious example being the Colorado before her HP buff. Simply using a top-down view of cruisers that dseehafer did a while ago, the Neptune and Minotaur in-game are nearly identical in length. Or at least, much closer in length than the difference Design ZA and Neptune would suggest.

 

I do kinda wish that WG would give the Neptune the as-designed tripod masts for the stock hull and lattice mast for the upgraded hull, while also giving Minotaur the lattice masts. It's rather jarring that the more modern cruiser design would have an older style mast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
6 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

I know that there are exceptions when it comes to displacement and HP in game, the most obvious example being the Colorado before her HP buff. Simply using a top-down view of cruisers that dseehafer did a while ago, the Neptune and Minotaur in-game are nearly identical in length. Or at least, much closer in length than the difference Design ZA and Neptune would suggest.

 

I do kinda wish that WG would give the Neptune the as-designed tripod masts for the stock hull and lattice mast for the upgraded hull, while also giving Minotaur the lattice masts. It's rather jarring that the more modern cruiser design would have an older style mast.

 

Fair point, I had forgotten that dseehafer created those useful images. It does look like the hull from scheme D then, though not quite the HP from it.

That would seem the logical way to go about it, but WG doesn't exactly do logical all the time. Would be nice if Minotaur got the LRS director as planned too though. The use of 20mm Oerlikons on a post war ship is also something that doesn't fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

Well, apparently the article has been assessed as a B on the quality scale already in the scope of WikiProjects Ships. That was quick, considering that the Wikipedia articles for the much older 1943 Minotaur and Tiger classes still has the C grade. :cap_hmm:

 

EDIT: Damn, reassessed and demoted to C. Oh well, that means more motivation for improvement.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles

Apologies to bring it up again, but asking kindly for those using superior technologik brings me this.

gur8LJu.jpg

YZlKpGy.jpg

It would appear that Minotaur is actually the correct length for ZA, meaning dseehafer's old images are probably a little bit off for precision.

Edited by Trainspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
59 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Apologies to bring it up again, but asking kindly for those using superior technologik brings me this.

gur8LJu.jpg

YZlKpGy.jpg

It would appear that Minotaur is actually the correct length for ZA, meaning dseehafer's old images are probably a little bit off for precision.

That's good to know, as in game the Minotaur does appear to be noticeably smaller than Neptune. Also, do you mind doing a comparison of Tirpitz and Bismarck? The Tirpitz is supposed to be a bit longer than Bismarck due to the slightly different bow stem, but I don't know if this is reflected in game.

AIso, I got banned from Wikipedia due to name violation. The admins have no sense of humor apparently...

image.thumb.png.c69bd5b2c9f57e1cacfb4801d2ab6872.png

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,847
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,235 posts
1,928 battles

Whilst the names of the Neptune class were carried across, that does not include Minotaur, as only five Neptune class ships were planned (Friedman's British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After pg.420).  Whilst you are probably aware of this, it could be phrased more clearly in the article itself. 

Excellent work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

I've worked on some more Wikipedia articles. I've largely written the armor section for the Montana article, and also revised the history and design section to be more accurate and get rid of most of the myths and misconceptions that were still on there. I've also fixed up the Iowa article, adding a small historical background section and substantially revising the armor section. I also created a new article about the 18"/48 cal gun and added more information to Special Treatment Steel.

I hope all these changes will give readers a more complete and accurate picture.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles

Sounds like you've got a lot of myths to fight when it comes to the Iowa's. Even the opening summary has misconceptions;

Quote

The Iowa-class battleships were a class of six fast battleships ordered by the United States Navy in 1939 and 1940 to escort the Fast Carrier Task Forces that would operate in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Four were completed; two more were laid down but canceled in 1945 at war's end, and both hulls were scrapped in 1958. Like other third-generation American battleships, the Iowasfollowed the design pattern set forth in the preceding North Carolina-class and South Dakota-class battleships, which emphasized speed in addition to secondary and anti-aircraft batteries. Based on wartime experience, they were to serve as fast escorts for Essex-class aircraft carriers.

Fast carrier escorts, hmm?

That being said, how does one become an editor on Wikipedia? There's a lot of blantantly false data when it comes to technical aspects of Italian ships in English Wikipedia articles that I'd love to correct (Littorio's armor section is enough to give me an aneurysm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
198 posts
5,561 battles

Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, although you must register/ create an account there to edit the Italian ship articles...

Edited by Ben_CA68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
3 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Sounds like you've got a lot of myths to fight when it comes to the Iowa's. Even the opening summary has misconceptions;

Fast carrier escorts, hmm?

That being said, how does one become an editor on Wikipedia? There's a lot of blantantly false data when it comes to technical aspects of Italian ships in English Wikipedia articles that I'd love to correct (Littorio's armor section is enough to give me an aneurysm).

Yikes, I've spent most of my time on Montana, looks like I need to give the Iowa article some love. I really want to get rid of the misconception that the Montana was specifically designed with the Yamato in mind.

Registering an account on Wikipedia is easy, but at least for the BB articles which tend to be fairly stable, they're really stingy on making sure you properly cite everything and have edit summaries. In particular, the admins have been on my [edited]about including edit summaries. They also forced me to change my username because apparently it doesn't meet guidelines. :Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,529 posts
6,683 battles

It looks good, well written. I look forward to somebody copypasting it in this here forum and presenting it as their own work :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles
6 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

Yikes, I've spent most of my time on Montana, looks like I need to give the Iowa article some love. I really want to get rid of the misconception that the Montana was specifically designed with the Yamato in mind.

Registering an account on Wikipedia is easy, but at least for the BB articles which tend to be fairly stable, they're really stingy on making sure you properly cite everything and have edit summaries. In particular, the admins have been on my [edited]about including edit summaries. They also forced me to change my username because apparently it doesn't meet guidelines. :Smile_smile:

Properly citing - how far do they want us to go? I can easily grab information from specific pages from a book. Also, edit summaries - I assume that's just saying what you did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
Just now, Phoenix_jz said:

Properly citing - how far do they want us to go? I can easily grab information from specific pages from a book. Also, edit summaries - I assume that's just saying what you did?

Yup, just cite the name of the book, author, and the specific pages and you're good to go. Usually, if you make some formatting errors, others will fix it for you. For edit summaries, just briefly describe what you changed, one sentence will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles
Just now, DeliciousFart said:

Yup, just cite the name of the book, author, and the specific pages and you're good to go. Usually, if you make some formatting errors, others will fix it for you. For edit summaries, just briefly describe what you changed, one sentence will do.

Gotcha, thanks a lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles

Well, I just did m own edit to the Littorio article. I added in information about the SAP shells, and also noted the fact that the HE shells were never actually used.

I also entirely re-wrote the armor section, and cited the crap out of everything. Hopefully I caught most of the grammatical mistakes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
16 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Well, I just did m own edit to the Littorio article. I added in information about the SAP shells, and also noted the fact that the HE shells were never actually used.

I also entirely re-wrote the armor section, and cited the crap out of everything. Hopefully I caught most of the grammatical mistakes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship

Wow, this guy named Parsecboy completely reverted your edits. To be honest he's been giving me trouble too because my additions to the SoDak's armor is also considered "too detailed". Here, copy and paste your edits in your sandbox and I can help format it better. Also, try to avoid things that come across as opinion, Wikipedia is generally very picky about that from what I've noticed.

I've copied and pasted your changes in your talk page so we can reformat and revise it to better fit an encyclopedia tone.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles
44 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

Wow, this guy named Parsecboy completely reverted your edits. To be honest he's been giving me trouble too because my additions to the SoDak's armor is also considered "too detailed". Here, copy and paste your edits in your sandbox and I can help format it better. Also, try to avoid things that come across as opinion, Wikipedia is generally very picky about that from what I've noticed.

I've copied and pasted your changes in your talk page so we can reformat and revise it to better fit an encyclopedia tone.

I just saw. Apparently navweaps doesn't count as a source, despite the fact half the bloody naval gun pages on the website directly cite navweaps as one of two or in some cases their only source. Also, apparently I didn't properly format my references.

I tried to avoid saying anything that was my own conclusion, and pretty much stayed within what could be directly cited as fact within the sources I used, so hopefully I didn't go over the line anywhere. The biggest thing I can think of was my comment about Terni Cemented, but that was citing navweaps, which apparently is selectively not a real source.

Thanks for copy/pasting what I wrote! Stupid question time, however;

I'm totally unfamiliar with wikipedia's formatting, so I quite literally don't know how to reply to things on my talk page. Is it via the 'new section' tab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
5 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

I just saw. Apparently navweaps doesn't count as a source, despite the fact half the bloody naval gun pages on the website directly cite navweaps as one of two or in some cases their only source. Also, apparently I didn't properly format my references.

I tried to avoid saying anything that was my own conclusion, and pretty much stayed within what could be directly cited as fact within the sources I used, so hopefully I didn't go over the line anywhere. The biggest thing I can think of was my comment about Terni Cemented, but that was citing navweaps, which apparently is selectively not a real source.

Thanks for copy/pasting what I wrote! Stupid question time, however;

I'm totally unfamiliar with wikipedia's formatting, so I quite literally don't know how to reply to things on my talk page. Is it via the 'new section' tab?

 No, new section creates a new section, to reply you use a colon. ":<insert text underneath the comment you're replying to>"

Regarding Navweaps, I think they'll only accept it if you can have something alongside it. They treat it as a supplementary source, though they can be inconsistent about it. That's what happens when you have so many editors.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×