Jump to content

Talk:Japanese battleship Hiei

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJapanese battleship Hiei has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starJapanese battleship Hiei is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of Japan series, a good topic. It is also part of the Battleships of Japan series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 3, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
December 11, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
December 23, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
October 31, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
December 11, 2019Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that to avoid sending her to the scrapyards, the Imperial Japanese Navy converted the battleship Hiei into a training ship?
Current status: Good article

Bulges or Bilges?

[edit]

I am no naval warfare expert, but I suspect the addition of bilges is not a defense against torpedoes. I have read of the addition of bulges, filled with shock absorbing materials. Is this what's meant? Hue White 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  • "On 1 August 1933, work commenced on Hiei's sister-ship Haruna to reconfigure her as a fast battleship.": The connection to the rest of the paragraph isn't clear. I'll remove it for now to help me make some other changes, but feel free to give some context and re-insert it. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "#" to "No." per Chicago and MOS. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "14 inch turret": 14-inch turret. There are lots of these that need hyphens. - Dank (push to talk)
  • OTOH: "25-mm gun mounts": 25 mm gun mounts. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Hiei sortied as part of the with Rear Admiral": ? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "From 26–30 October": needs a "to", not a dash, per Chicago and WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demilitarization to training ship

[edit]

On the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_training_ship_Hiei.jpg we can see that only aftmost turret was removed, not the both ones, as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.52.79.26 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalcanal material wrong

[edit]

Hiei did not shell Atlanta's bridge; those shells were friendly fire from San Francisco. Idk what to replace that text with, though. 99.249.94.60 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was struck from shells fired from the USS San Francisco. The information is listed in Hornfoscher's Neptune's Inferno, but I've found an online source that'll substitute. I will correct the pages on the other Kongo Class battlecruisers as well. MG George H Thomas (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date Discrepancy

[edit]

All - the date listed here for the sinking of Hiei is 14 Nov 1942. The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal#Aftermath page has the sinking as 13 November. This is probably an error caused by sources reflecting different sides of the international date line. How do we handle this? user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Damage to Atlanta's Bridge.

[edit]

Since Hiei wasn't responsible for the damage to Atlanta's bridge, it may be best to simply remove that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.146.137 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be fact checked.

[edit]

I found that somebody incorrectly attributed dye shell colors. Apparently it was deliberate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.17.141 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]