This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian light destroyer project article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 13, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the
Australian light destroyer project was canceled, the
Australian Government ordered
frigates which the
Royal Australian Navy had previously assessed as being "second rate escorts"? |
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With the back-and-forth over File:DDL Kokoda 01.jpg. I think we need to take a pause and try to come to some consensus over the image's fate. This image depicts a remote control model based on the DDL Project design, but with weapons from ships currently in RAN service.
From what I can understand, this is how we've got here
I'm in two minds about this image. On one hand, I'm not sure what the image adds to the article in the way of encyclopedic value. It is one person's interpretation of what the DDL may have looked like (although "based on the building plans", those plans rapidly changed during the design of the ship, and were never put into use), if if was fitted with the weapons and systems that person thought it may have carried at a later point in life (which is pure speculation on their part). On the other hand, as a ship that never passed the design stage, there are very few possible images that could be used in the article...most of the ones currently there are of ships the DDL would have replaced, or was itself replaced by when the project flopped. On the third hand, I hate edit warring, and think we've hit the "Discuss" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I'm inviting interested parties to share their thoughts. -- saberwyn 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
And now, an IP user from the same range has changed the caption to state that this model is based on the "official Navy plans". I have left the claim in (with a {{ citation needed}} and a {{ dubious}} tag, the latter linking here), and invited the IP user to comment here.
In regards to my personal stance, I am now leaning towards the image's removal from the article on the grounds that the image is very speculative, and the caption is making fairly significant claims (that this is the official design, and that this is how they would have been equipped if in service today) that have not been demonstrated through the use of sources. -- saberwyn 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. The most recent edition of The Navy (the magazine of the Navy League of Australia) has an article on the concept of flexible multi-role warships. The DDL rates a passing mention, in which the author claims that common hulls but different roles/outfits were considered, that the RN and RAN collaborated at one stage on a possible design, that Australia left the joint project in November 1968 (for reasons unspecified) and RAN efforts were canned in 1973, and the British input into the joint project evolved into the Type 21 frigate. The first parts are consistent with what we've got, but Australia leaving the project contradicts the article (which says the Brits upped sticks following the Aussie's insistence on American weapons), and the Type 21 link is not mentioned but would possibly be worth a line. The paragraph has a footnote referencing an article in Navy Quarterly (a Department of the Navy publication).
I leave it to those with a better understanding of the subject to decide if any of this should be incorporated into the article, or if the footnote is worth pursuing as a potential source. Citations follow. -- saberwyn 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian light destroyer project. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian light destroyer project article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 13, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the
Australian light destroyer project was canceled, the
Australian Government ordered
frigates which the
Royal Australian Navy had previously assessed as being "second rate escorts"? |
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With the back-and-forth over File:DDL Kokoda 01.jpg. I think we need to take a pause and try to come to some consensus over the image's fate. This image depicts a remote control model based on the DDL Project design, but with weapons from ships currently in RAN service.
From what I can understand, this is how we've got here
I'm in two minds about this image. On one hand, I'm not sure what the image adds to the article in the way of encyclopedic value. It is one person's interpretation of what the DDL may have looked like (although "based on the building plans", those plans rapidly changed during the design of the ship, and were never put into use), if if was fitted with the weapons and systems that person thought it may have carried at a later point in life (which is pure speculation on their part). On the other hand, as a ship that never passed the design stage, there are very few possible images that could be used in the article...most of the ones currently there are of ships the DDL would have replaced, or was itself replaced by when the project flopped. On the third hand, I hate edit warring, and think we've hit the "Discuss" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I'm inviting interested parties to share their thoughts. -- saberwyn 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
And now, an IP user from the same range has changed the caption to state that this model is based on the "official Navy plans". I have left the claim in (with a {{ citation needed}} and a {{ dubious}} tag, the latter linking here), and invited the IP user to comment here.
In regards to my personal stance, I am now leaning towards the image's removal from the article on the grounds that the image is very speculative, and the caption is making fairly significant claims (that this is the official design, and that this is how they would have been equipped if in service today) that have not been demonstrated through the use of sources. -- saberwyn 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. The most recent edition of The Navy (the magazine of the Navy League of Australia) has an article on the concept of flexible multi-role warships. The DDL rates a passing mention, in which the author claims that common hulls but different roles/outfits were considered, that the RN and RAN collaborated at one stage on a possible design, that Australia left the joint project in November 1968 (for reasons unspecified) and RAN efforts were canned in 1973, and the British input into the joint project evolved into the Type 21 frigate. The first parts are consistent with what we've got, but Australia leaving the project contradicts the article (which says the Brits upped sticks following the Aussie's insistence on American weapons), and the Type 21 link is not mentioned but would possibly be worth a line. The paragraph has a footnote referencing an article in Navy Quarterly (a Department of the Navy publication).
I leave it to those with a better understanding of the subject to decide if any of this should be incorporated into the article, or if the footnote is worth pursuing as a potential source. Citations follow. -- saberwyn 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian light destroyer project. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)