User talk:Nigel Ish/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMS Ambuscade (D38) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be no more than {{convert|315|ft|m|2}} long [[length between perpendiculars|between perpendiculars ((pp)]].<ref name="Friedman p188-0">Friedman 2009, pp. 188–190.</ref><ref name="English p7-8">

Thanks,

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited G-class destroyer (1944), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daring-class destroyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nigel:

I'm curious. Is there any particular reason that you required the citation of a reliable source for the astonishingly unremarkable service ceiling of 42,000 ft (13,000 m) for the LTV Corsair II jet aircraft, when none of its other performance parameters is cited, or required citation? Why 'service ceiling', in particular?

The specifications were cited to reliable sources, as listed at the top of the specifications section. When you added information without quoting a source, it gave the impression that it was sourced to the existing, sources, misrepresenting them. In addition, the reference that you provided when you re-added the service ceiling almost certainly does not meet the requirements of

WP:RS. So is dubious even now.Nigel Ish (talk

) 20:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A discussion has been started on your conduct here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_on_who_decides_.22fair_use.22_and_the_.22no_equivalent.22_policy_for_pictures_on_Wikipedia.3F --99.244.158.43 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Hi Nigel. According to the RAAF Museum, A77-3 was NF11. It operated at Woomera.Lexysexy (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Republic P-47 Thunderbolt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Venezuelan Air Force]]{<ref name="iapr7 p165"/>
• an item doesn't apply, like capacity, leave it blank. For additional lines, end your alt units with) and start a new, fully-formatted line with -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Swordfish (1916), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huszár-class destroyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

In my opinion, no. Colourised photos do not belong in an Encyclopedia - using them is inserting information which is not in the original photo. Even if you do have accurate information on the colour scheme of an aircraft, you don't really know the light conditions, so colourisation is not encyclopedic.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Bfd1942 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

MessageKeith-264 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm

If you actually look at specifications for the ships as reported in good sources, the 24s and the two Indian sloops were very, very different. The 24-class were powered by triple-expansion steam engines rated at 2500ihp and driving a single shaft giving a speed of 17 knots with a displacement of 1320 t (p. 95–96 of Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921). The two Indian ships were both powered by geared steam turbines driving two shafts, with Lawrence' machinery giving 1900 shp and 15 knots, and Clive's giving 1700 shp and 14.5 knots. (Jane's Fighting Ships 1931). Furthermore they actually looked quite different - compare [1] - a 24-class sloop, with square bow and stern and a deliberately symmetrical layout with [2] - HMIS Clive or [3] - HMIS Lawrence. They were also built at completely different shipyards - the two cancelled 24s were built by Swan Hunters on the Tyne, while the two Indian ships were built by Beardmores of Glasgow (who didn't build any 24s). Need I go on? They are definitely not of the same class.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

clyde built has a diffrent pic that the one that came up on google image search <_< . guess i was wrong, do you have any idea what class those 2 ships belonged to? any help would be much appreciated. Pvpoodle (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

They appear to have been individual ships and not members of a distinct class - and have enough differences between them that they probably cannot be treated as part of a single class. Lawrence was 248 ft long and displaced 1412 tons while Clive was 270 ft long and displaced 2100 tons, although it does note that both ships were designed by "Sir Wm. Biles & Co".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

so custom designed sloops then. that clears up a bit of confusion. thanks again for your time and effort

in helping with this Pvpoodle (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

also please feel free to add more ships to the List of ships of the Indian Navy, like you did with the Ton class (did not know about those), especially with the early ships of the WW1 and WW2 and early cold war eras, information about which is hard to find today. thank you Pvpoodle (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Nigel, I saw you added the 1912 Brassey's to the article - does it have anything on the Italo-Turkish War that Beehler doesn't? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't happen to come across it while I was trawling Google Books, so if there's anything worth adding please do. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm a bit confused. On the HMS Jersey page I re-worded everything in the 'Pre-war service' section so its not the same as the original source. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong!

Thanks Apocalypticdoom (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The text after you changed was still far to close to the source. It still read like the source and the reader could still tell that it was closely based in the original. You shouldn't just reword sources, but write the article using your own words to convey the information in the sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on the VTE for Libia - was a poor copy-paste job from Dogali ;-)

No big deal :) - but as the 1st reference to the work (I know it's in the bibliog.) shouldn't it be a full one? — Saltmarsh^talk 19:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, that's why articles have bibliographies.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please would you visit the Talk page relating to No.255 Squadron and there (a) constructively join in the discussion about "splitting", also (b) set out your connection (if any) with the squadron. The result of a lot of difficult research work done by descendants of squadron members has, within the last few days, been deleted without prior discussion. 255 Historian (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HAL HT-2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inline engine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Leopard (1897), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmouth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

There is undoubtedly a copyvio on this article, but it is not of my making. Rather than the somewhat draconian action threatened of deleting the article, I suggest that the amendment of 07:24, 27 September 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No._254_Squadron_RAF&diff=next&oldid=543086668) should be reversed, as this would appear to have been copied directly from the RAF website by an IP editor. I hope you concur that this action is acceptable. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Nigel, I started a section here about how many were built. Can you take a look at http://www.histaviation.com/Arado_Ar_198.html and see if 2 or 3 should be stated. Thanks Samf4u (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey, you reverted changes I made to the census table in the Buncrana article; which you were correct to do as I had accidentally hit the save changes button before completing the table so it was a mix of 2006 and 2011 figures but I have finished it now so I am going ahead and update it. HylandPaddy (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What sources do you think the mystery editor is using? If the editor is copying from somewhere then they are doing a very poor job considering the number of typos and poor English that they are adding.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your reversion to my use of "helis.com" as a valid source for the number of Argentine SA330L; your reason was " helis.com is user edited and therefore not a reliable source ". I also noticed that this same source has been used in other articles without being challenged. Is there consensus documented somewhere that info from "helis.com" should not be used in wikiarticles? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See [4]. The website explicitly says that anyone can add or edit a database item. That definatly qualifies it as a non- reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Crystal clear, thanks.DPdH (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am perhaps the most diligent researcher of the B-25 Program and have contributed to several top books on the subject, online articles, museums and archives. my research findings are found in B-25 circles worldwide. I can significantly improve the article if it were not locked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b025:bc0f:2dfc:d223:3617:858e (talk)

re: B-25 article Your major users are distorted. these correct major users were: AAF USMC RAF The latter two about equal. The USN tested one or a few G series and conducted carrier trails with a sole H series ( see the article). The RCAF used the type in NA as a trainer but was no more a user that other Commonwealth Nations. not in top three as per guidelines. NEI was significant to the program as was China. The AAFAC WAS A USER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b025:bc0f:2dfc:d223:3617:858e (talk)

Discuss this on the article talk page please. Changes need to be verifiable to

reliable sources, not original research, or claims about personal expertise. They also need to be coherently written, which many of the recent IP changes to the article were not.Nigel Ish (talk

) 05:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

How does one access article talk page? are you saying offical archival material are not acceptable references? Not asking that info be accepted on basis of personal expertise. What I was trying to get across is that the B-25 article cites outdated, incorrect references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B013:3817:E602:877:1B9D:3F4B (talk • contribs) 14 May 2015 18:24

2600 all you need to do is click on the tab "talk" on the North American B-25 Mitchell page or follow this link Talk:North American B-25 Mitchell. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the lost six, I was aware of these as they are not hard to find, makes you wonder if we have a

WP:COMPETENCE issue with the IP. MilborneOne (talk

) 18:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that the source the IP is using lists these six as Gs. However, as they seem to have problems with using talk pages and citing sources, sorting out the articles may be a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

Way back in 2008 this edit which added a short citation to the article

It's the paperback edition of what I assume is the same book - I've added a full citation.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments on my work in progress on this article. I shall revert your deletion of my amends - I intend to conform to copyright requirements, but copy/pasting is a simple way of minimising effort while using an online item as a source for relevant info. As I worked through, note that I made no attempt to disguise the source of the information that I used; there are other sources that I will also cite - online and print. When I interrupt work, I usually try to leave the article in a clean state for readers - in this case, mea culpa. By the way, I suspect that some of the text you restored was also a direct copy/paste, but without citations to make proving it easy - as was pointed out in the banner at the top of page. I hope that you will permit me to finish improving this article and citing sources, then any comments/criticisms would be much appreciated. Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I note that you reinserted blatant copyvio from the nav-hist site - including direct copying of the first paragraph of the page "ordered in April 1918 with 38 others...", and that you continue to keep copied text on your talk page - as you continue to act in this way I have reported the issue at the Copyright Problems page.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been notice that the standard first sentence on WWII VINTAGE article includes the type of propulsion and country of origins. it was also been noted the conformace to the standard is not vandalism. it is futher noted that you are incapable or unwilling to use Wiki protocols regarding citation tags and reverts. therefore it is noted that there is other motivation beyond good article cohesion motivating your behave. it is also hoped that writting this in the passive voice will improve your comprehension and provide a degree of non-atributal qualities to the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:C19C:39AD:3E86:E31C:6E07 (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to the P-51 lede paragraph was misleading - the P-51 was by no leap of imagination an "International Aircraft" and the it did not "emerge" as a single seat fighter in 1943, it already was one, and represented no improvement, and so was reverted. As long as you continue to assume bad faith about other peoples' motives and refuse to acknowledge that your edits require large scale revisions to turn them into something usable in an encyclopedia, then your edits are likely to continue to be reverted.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The lost distinction is the before America entered the war and over a year before the XB-29 first flew, the deployment plan was ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And your point is...? September 1941 is before the US entered the war (and I wasn't the one who removed the explicit mention of pre-war plans anyway).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

are you writting for the public or for those that already know ? losing the distiction means that it is no longer evident. I was please that you were resourceful enough to go to Craven & Cate...were I knew the plan was discussed. You did exactly what I set you up to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:C19C:39AD:3E86:E31C:6E07 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As I have already said above, I did not remove explicit mention of the plans being pre-entry of the US to WW2. You comment "You did exactly what I set you up to do" indicates that you are not here to discuss improvements to the encyclopedia but to engage in point scoring - please do not post to my talk page again.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

You are central to the case against Philm540 and his Pennsylvania IPs presented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_against_Nigel_Ish_by_block-evading_IP. Please feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging the admins who have blocked Philm540's IPs: Nick-D and MilborneOne. You are free to comment, and especially to link to previous discussions about this guy. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:No. 9 Squadron RAF#Citations -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your recent expansion of No. 57 Squadron RAF. Thankyou! - I don't have those books!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, ref here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AtqOSxG9N1YC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=curtiss+super+america&source=bl&ots=0gNuM-r8Hy&sig=jjZcaLW0ngu2STlmE_7jlNwPR-I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAWoVChMIxuKGkPHDxwIVBZfbCh3OXgXd#v=onepage&q=curtiss%20super%20america&f=false

Will add the cite for you, someone relayed the story to me once that Porte landed the aircraft heavily resulting in the damage, but I have not seen anything in detail about the event other than above. CheersRstory (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

You have removed the additional script which I've provided. It does not interrupt the accessibility on devices of non-css/java screenreaders or ipad at the desktop mode. However,

MOS strongly discourages the use of scrolling or collapsed tables at all for content. Please don't do it.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's accessible on portable devices and

MOS:SCROLL does allow it, if that requirement is ensured and fulfilled. Also, it's not up to you to determine whether it should be removed or not. Thanks Bouquey (talk

) 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." This is a fairly clear prohibition for content that is not included elsewhere in an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's cherry pick! /s Seriously, without context, it's worthless: "When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." That's definitely not a clear prohibition, also, it's quite dismaying how you going from "discourages the use" to a " clear prohibition". A further click on the link actually even explains how to disable and to avoid invisible content by rechecking it. If you have experienced some problems in accessing to the article, then you could have told me before; as we could seek for a solution. Since I do not have any problem accessing WP with my iPad or iPhone and Windows tablet, there must be some personal and/or emotional repulsion against it. Bouquey (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reverted my edits on the Soko G-4 Super Galeb. I only removed the reference to Yugoslavia and the Yugoslavian Air Force as they no longer exist. If you think I should have simply added references to

The articles cover the whole of the history of the aircraft, not just the situation now, and so it is not appropriate for the infobox to ignore by far the largest user, even though it no longer exists.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you know better than I, but wondered why the Tabor stays and Bristol goes?80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Strictly in accordance with the criteria I am inclined to agree with you about the Tabor, but someone added it, perhaps on the basis it was a triplane?80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There are far too many See also links on most of these flying boat articles anyway. Certainly they would be strongly objected to if anyone tried to take the article through the FA process.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please point me to the FA process so I can take a view?80.229.34.113 (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've drafted what I intend to use as the basic description for all of the Tribals at HMS Mohawk (F31). This will be modified as necessary to suit the Commonwealth ships and expanded for the longer-lived ships. Let me know what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable, although there is a little more detail on the ship's machinery and armament at HMS Gurkha (F20). I would think that either description would do, and that every article doesn't need to be the same. In fact it's probably better that they are at least slightly different as long as they convey the correct information.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's always a question on how to distribute technical information between the individual ship article and the class article. I tend to save stuff like gun performance, boiler pressures & temps, and fire-control stuff for the class article as I think that that sort of detail isn't really relevant to what the ship did, which is the focus of its article. Conversely the class article covers only the highlights of each ship's career and skips stuff like refits, minor damage and the like in favor of technical detail. And just to keep things nice and simple we've got varying displacements and draughts for these ships with Whitley quoting legend figures, English giving data from when Zulu was inclined after completion (probably the most reliable data I've seen so far, IMO), Friedman a few tons off from English, and Lenton 80-odd tons over English and Friedman. Haven't looked to see what Hodges gives, but I'm gonna wait until March arrives before proceeding much further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair point that aa lot of the detail can go in the class article, although I could argue that the amount of detail in the individual ship articles may vary due to the context - for the ships lost to high level bombing off Norway, fire control and the lack of proper high angle armament is more relevant than for others in the class.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely about the context and was unsure how much detail about the AA to put in as a base for all of the ships. I finally decided that the universal replacement of 'X' mount was a good place to mention its limitations, although I'm still not sure if I've set it up enough so that a casual reader can readily grasp things. I think maybe I should add a bit about the Tribals being the first British destroyers with an AA director, but I'm not sure that the elevation limitation is all that relevant except for those ships lost to dive bombers. What do you think?

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

Cheers 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzie (talk • contribs)

Your addition was a classic piece of trivia. It was and is entirely unsuitable for the lede section of the article, which is intended as a summary of the whole article. If this factoid doesn't seem to fit anywhere else other than the lede section, it suggests that it is unsuitable to be included in the article at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm putting a

I've also posted a notification of the RFC @ the point of view noticeboard. Tapered (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)