ノート:H級戦艦

H45について

Wikipedia英語版の"H-class battleship proposals"を始め外国語版にはH45についての記述がなく、英語版のトークページ[1]における議論スレッド[2]では、「情報ソースとされるDavid Porter氏の著書以外、他の著名なドイツ海軍史家の著作にはH45については一切言及されていない」ことから、H45案は現実には存在していない可能性が高い、とされています。

日本語版でも項目内からH45についての記述を削るべきかどうかですが、真偽はともかく「そのようなものが存在するとされていた（いる」ことには触れるべきでしょうか。

個人的には「実在の真偽はともかくフィクション作品にはH45という戦艦が登場するものがある」ことは記述されていてもよいかとは思われますが……。 --240fe0730c1（会話） 2018年12月15日 (土) 12:38 (UTC)

• 一つ確実に言えるのは、Wikipediaの性質上、検証可能な情報ソースがある以上記載できる、ということです。そしてそのソースに対する疑義が検証可能なソースによって行われていない以上は（Wikipediaの議論ページでは残念ながらソースにはなりません）、疑義や否定に関する記述はできません。そういう記述にしたければ、その価値がある情報ソースを見つけ出してからになります。--BfDXjJtUZv6q（会話） 2018年12月21日 (金) 07:48 (UTC)

  H45 Does Not Exist[edit]

  The design listed as being "H45" does not exist. What happened was that the Warships Projects Discussion Board (http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?mforum=warshipprojects has a theoretical discussion of the sheer size of a battleship that used the guns in question. One contributor to that thread (posting as seeadler) than ran up a purely hypothetical 'design' to illustrate how absurd the idea was. To quote seeadler

  "If he took information about H45 as describing a real ship I think he needs to read this site more closely or German naval technical design history more closely. I am the one who made H45 up. It was a ship of 700,000 tons (based on an engineer's estimates of a vessel capable of carrying 4 x 2 80xm guns). A heavy AA armament of 8 24 cm guns (the Kriegsmarine was developing such a gun for land base use at the end of the war) and numerous 12.8cm flak in enclosed mounts. I made a drawing of the ship and placed it on the site but I assure you it was entirely imaginary. If Mr. Porter merely googled the design without checking further then he did a disservice to his readers and to his reputation."

  This thread can be found at http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890&mforum=warshipprojects

  It appears that David Porter found the reference to H45 by searching the internet and did not pay any attention to the actual provenance of the data. This pretty much destroys him as a serious historian. H45 is not a genuine H-class design and it should be removed from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk • contribs)

  I had questioned the addition of the material - no other reputable German naval historian (such as Breyer, Gröner, etc.) has ever mentioned anything like the so-called H-45 design. It amazes me that Porter didn't bother to fact-check the information, and that his publisher didn't either. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  The question is whether Hitler ever asked for a version of the H battleship design to be armed with Gustav/Dora cannon. Even if a design was never created, and Porter indicates in his book that it was not, then if the request was true then the H-45 concept bears some valdidity. The question is, was there ever a request for an H battleship with 31.5" cannon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  If the design is pure baloney, conjectural fiction, then it has no validity, and should not be represented here. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  The H-45 design is Internet fancruft, but it is true that Hitler wanted battleships with 80 cm weapons. He showed sketches of them to Raeder, who dispatched Adm. Fuchs to explain the constraints imposed by such an arsenal. Sacxpert (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  There is growing doubt as to whether this is true or not. It's mentioned in Duilin and Gartzke but it is not sources there and appears to be purely anecdotal. Also, Admiral Raeder is quoted in "Hitler and His Admirals" by Anthony K Martienssen as saying Hitler had a very good grasp of the technical aspects of ship design and that quotation is sourced to an original document. It's hard to imagine Raeder saying that if Hitler was floating this crazy scheme. It seems that the whole battleship with 80cm weapons thing is purely an internet creation that has somehow gained a life of its own and found its way into reputable reference books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's apparent that some of the authors of the otherwise excellent H-Battleship page are adamant that no mention be made of Porter's H-45 reference. While I initially was only citing Porter's work, I did later modify the H-45 citation to include reference to its potential napkinwaffe status. Yet that too was deleted. Even talking about a controversy about it was deemed impossible. So I created a SEPARATE page - which included a lengthy reference to the controversy involving Porter's citation - and after a few months the same individual who deleted the H-45 reference was thoughtful enough to petition Wikipedia to have it removed. Do you guys have to be this rigid...even when I am agreeing with your facts and not Porter's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Reopening to note that User:Marino73 seems to have reopened this can of worms in May and June through WP:AFC at H45 Battleship Proposal, again sourced almost entirely to Porter's book, and with no controversy section or anything like it included at any point in the page history, certainly not since User:DGG moved it out of draftspace at the end of June. I've WP:PRODded it; let's see if anything happens there. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I deprodded it. I have no firm opinion, but I think it needs an open discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Redirected the article - it's a substantially similar recreation of the article redirected via this AfD. Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I had found a second literary source for the H45 battleship proposal.  I also mentioned in the article that there was no real design work done upon it. The question is, did Hitler ever suggest putting 31.5 inch guns on a H-class battleship ? If so, then the article should stand or at least be mentioned in a minor section within the H-class battleship article. It might only have as much weight as the Kaneda battleship proposal, but I felt it deserved mention if it was derived from that time period. contribs) 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^

  That's a copy of Wikipedia content. Which is to say, your Wikipedia content, which can hardly be used as a source to justify including your content. As for whether it deserves mention, it is not based in reality, so no, it does not deserve to be mentioned, either here or in a stand-alone article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you know if the Kaneda battleship proposal was a similar hoax, or did it have legitimacy?contribs) 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino73 (talk • contribs)

  Not a hoax, no, but as far as I can tell it was simply the work of Commander Kaneda's overactive imagination. It never was a serious proposal. So if you're asking whether it merits an article, no, it doesn't. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  The Grosser Kurfurst would be one of the ships in this class with 313m. The Grosser Kurfurst is the largest battleship in World of Warships. 187.62.156.212 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)--169.199.47.125 2021年11月1日 (月) 21:54 (UTC)