Talk:HMS Adventure (1904)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Adventure (1904) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

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 / World War I

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion 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
	World War I task force

Discrepancy?

under propulsion she is described as having oil fired steam. then under range it describes her coal capacity.??Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Jane's does not mention them being oil fired. I'll take that detail out. Benea (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paid off

i have encountered this term in several other british warship articles. i don't think too many readers, myself included, are completely aware of its meaning. i'm assuming it's a rough equivalent of what would be called in the u.s.n. 'decommissioned'.perhaps some explanation is in order?Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]