Talk:HMAS Canberra (D33)

Date format

Best practice is to wikify dates into the format [[20 January]] [[2001]] or [[January 20]] [[2001]] because this displays dates to the reader in their preferred format. The examples above would both display as 20 January 2001 to a reader with British preferences set. And January 20, 2001 to a reader with U.S. preferences (the default). See how these look to you:

• 20 January 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
• [[20 January]], 2001 displays as 20 January, 2001
• [[20 January]] 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
• [[20 January]], [[2001]] displays as 20 January, 2001
• [[20 January]] [[2001]] displays as 20 January 2001
• January 20, 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
• [[January 20]] 2001 displays as January 20 2001
• [[January 20]], 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
• [[January 20]], [[2001]] displays as January 20, 2001
• [[January 20]] [[2001]] displays as January 20 2001

We don't need to wikilink subsequent appearences of the same year when they are just a year, or even a month and year. But full dates should be wikified, if for no other reason than to display that comma for U.S. readers. See WP:MOSDATE --Surgeonsmate 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a very good reason to have non-standard dates for this article, I intend to revert to the MoS standard of January 20 2001 throughout, because if the years in a full date are left unlinked, the commas are displayed incorrectly for some readers. --Surgeonsmate 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Date format

Sorry about that i was suppose to finish the dates but i forgot

Zipang

I have a picture reay to upload but it won't let me. If someone who can could contact me I would be more than happy to email it to them. --MrNelg 11:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Canberra crest.gif

Image:HMAS Canberra crest.gif 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) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bagley friendly fire

There are a few sources discussing the possibility that Bagley torped Canberra. Footnotes in Rising Sun Victorious (fn6, p. 210) and The US Navy against the Axis (fn 17, p. 315) state the claim has been made, and attribute it to Bruce Loxton and Chris Coulthard-Clark in The shame of Savo (pp. 191-205). If I recall correctly, Loxton was a junior officer aboard Canberra at the time. Would be best if someone could read that and be able to add to the article how and why the friendly fire conclusion was reached. -- saberwyn 23:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)