Talk:Sink the Bismarck!

Historical inaccuracies

The article says it is inaccurate in its portrayal -- where is this so? Shawn Pickrell 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The innacuracies sections is massively too long. It is larger than the rest of the article. Sure, there were a number of historical inaccuracies in this film but that is true of all war films. It portrays a fictonalised version of events, based on the truth, rather than a documentary. Some of the detail needs cutting back. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the historical inaccuracy claim questioning the movie decribing Bismarck as the largest and most powerful battleship in the world. In May 1941, Bismarck was the largest battleship in the world by tonnage, and judged by its combination of speed, firepower and armor was the most powerful of its day. Its nearest rival was the Hood, and Hood was fatally under-armoured. The contemporary battleships of equal or better firepower--Nagato class, Colorado class and Nelson class--were all much slower. Larger battleships were commissioned much later: the first Yamato-class in Dec 1941, the first Iowa-class in 1943 and the HMS Vanguard in 1946. For the time frame of the movie, Bismarck was the largest and most powerful battleship in commission. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Bismarck was more powerful than most other battleships, but the new British battleships King George V and Prince of Wales might have been comparable. PatGallacher (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stb1960.jpg

Image:Stb1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidental Music

I think it should be noted that one of the themes from the incidental music, was pinched rather shamelessly by John Williams for 'Star Wars'?

I can't really put this in the main article as I don't have anyone else's citation for it, but it's pretty obvious when you hear it... --Ndaisley (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the intent of Star Wars to pay homage to old war movies (see especially The Dam Busters), use of musical themes to evoke memories of those films' scores may well have been deliberate; as always, a source citing Williams would help. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

special effects

The special effects for this film were very outstanding. The ship models were detailed and historically accurate. The water effects were made to scale and the shell splashes were authentic--they looked like the splashes seen in authentic war documentary footage with the "water" in a fine mist, rather than the huge slo-mo bathtub splashes of many films using minatures in a tank. Someone with better resources than I should write up this aspect of the film. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

The section on historical accuracy needs to be shortened as it is overly long and detailed. Just because some sources exist to support these examples does not mean that we should include every single one. A general overview of each inaccuracy/accuracy will suffice.--Skittles the hog (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a word count of the article and of individual sections and you will find that this particular section is entirely in line with other articles of major or significant film articles. FWiW, I am not wedded to the section but can see that historical sticklers are a part of both the film and historical communities. I recently re-did the Pearl Harbor film article for exactly the same reasons; this article doesn't have the same critical errors. Bzuk (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Okay, I suppose that makes sense. Especially now that it's under the production header. I withdraw my criticism FWiW. What's next for this one then?--Skittles the hog (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Typically, it can either appear on the Wiki:Film group or Wiki:History group forums as an article for review in order for other/ non-involved editors or reviewers to assess Sink the Bismarck! as either a "good article," (WP:GA) or in the case of an article that has outstanding merit or overall significance, for a "featured article" status (WP:FA). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Gotcha. I'll go forth and promote it wherever I can.--Skittles the hog (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM assessment

The article is well-developed and written, though I would give a few suggestions:

• The lead is too short.
• Production is almost entirely naval data. Is there anything about the writing, filmmaking, music that could be added?
• Reception too could get more reviews, contemporary or not, and box office data (though I did a quick search on both Google and Google Books and couldn't find anything on money, at least).

If those issues are taken care of, the article can perfectly reach Good status. igordebraga ≠ 21:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points, actually working this up for submission to GA status may take a bit more work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

There are a couple of minor points in relation to historical accuracy. Although Bismarck was making for France, it is possible that the British misinterpreted the messages, they may simply have meant that Bismarck had crossed the line Southern Greenland - Northern Hebrides, which meant that it was under the control of Group West instead of Group North. We do not know if the discussion described took place involving Lutjens, but it doesn't strike me as particularly implausible, given the limited number of survivors we do not know everything that happened. PatGallacher (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Uncited / unreliably cited material

Preserving here by providing this link. Please see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Sink the Bismarck!. 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/20041204195722/http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm to http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203141328/http://www.airfix.com/shop/ships/a50120-waterline-sink-the-bismarck-11200/ to http://www.airfix.com/shop/ships/a50120-waterline-sink-the-bismarck-11200/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved—no consensus in the favour of move-proposal. (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Sink the Bismarck! → Sink the Bismarck! (film)
• Sink the Bismarck (disambiguation) → Sink the Bismarck

Since Wikipedia has a number of articles relating to the sinking of the battleship, the film does not appear to be prominent to the degree sufficient for consideration as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As of this writing, Sink the Bismarck is a redirect to the film, but would serve more efficiently as the dab page's main title header. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The film is still sometimes shown on television. The only other articles with very similar titles are a rather obscure song and drinking game inspired by the film. If someone was looking for an article on the actual sinking of the Bismarck then this is probably not the search term they would use. PatGallacher (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move of dab page per Contemporary British and Irish Film Directors 2001 1903364213 "Gilbert retumed to the high seas in 1960 for Sink the Bismarck and once again in 1962 for the historical costume epic HMS Defiant.", no objection to the first as (film) would help readers, but helping readers isn't something encouraged. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Carrying out the first move without the second would be pointless, since it would be contrary to WP:PRECISION, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." PatGallacher (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The film seems to be the primary topic for variations of "Sink the Bismarck", so neither page should be moved. I have however, created the proposed target as a {{R from unnecessary dab}} to this page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Disambiguation is needed. And the 1959 book by the same name should be added (I read it just last year, and hadn't heard of the movie). Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you please create it then? To some extent we have to base these decisions on actual articles, not hypothetical article which might be created. Or are you thinking of Ludovic Kennedy's book "Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck"? I read it myself some years ago. PatGallacher (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That book was published in 2001 according to ottobib, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The explanation mark serves as natural disambiguation. CookieMonster755✉ 00:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.