This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of current ships of the Royal Canadian Navy 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 |
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
These aren't listed on the Navy website ( http://www.navy.forces.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp)
HMCS Anticosti(II) (MCM 110), and HMCS Moresby (MCM 112)...former Jean Tide and Joyce Tide do not appear in the history either. These two ships were commissioned into service (1989) as a stop gap measure prior to the (MCDV) Kingston class to provide mine sweeping training and coastal defence training, primarily for the Naval Reserve. Both, of the same class, were purchased from Tidewater Marine and refitted in Newfoundland. They were originally offshore supply vessels.
-- 85.68.21.213 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The last three are presumably not real, although the Bonaventure is, but maybe it was retired.
Alright, the above problem is solved...and I added all the ships I could glean off the Navy website (although this computer at work logged me off in the process), but they don't have all of them listed in their history section. There is probably a better way to make this list, but I'm probably not the person to do it :) Adam Bishop 04:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I found a book that would be extremely useful for this page - The Ships of Canada's Naval Forces 1910-1993: A Complete Pictorial History of Canadian Warships, by Ken Macpherson and John Burgess. If it helps, the ISBN is ISBN 0920277918. I don't have time to go through it thoroughly right now (and probably won't for a few weeks, if not more), so if anyone else happens to have a copy of it and wants to do all the work, go right ahead! Adam Bishop 05:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over names that have been reused - just repeat the name or add a number. For example, see Athabaskan. Is there a wikistandard for this? Edmilne 23:38, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
{{shipindex}} and
[[Category:Disambiguation lists of ships]]
at the bottom of the disambiguation list article.
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Royal Canadian Navy was copied or moved into Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy with this edit on 17 August 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to accommodate longer lists of vessels into a more reader-friendly column format. Various US Navy pages use a similar approach, see here and here. If thats not a good thing let me know and I'll undo everything. Robert Brukner ( talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: Hi, I wonder if we ought to take the ships in the Fisherman's Reserve and break them out into their proper naval classifications as aux, tug, patrol, minesweepers, examination, etc.. It would fit with the general approach of other ship lists, bring it into line with rest of the article, and help eliminate a number of duplications and other inconsistencies. What do you think? Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: Thanks for all the corrections you've made. How do you feel about removing wikilinks from the headers in this section, just as you did in the current fleet section, and organizing all the destroyers together as found in the 1922-1948 section? Robert Brukner ( talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: I'm adding some historic and current photo's of some of the larger classes. I'm thinking maybe we could tidy this up a bit more and then get the article assessed and moved up the chain. Thoughts? Robert Brukner ( talk) 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: While there are many things to improve, I've reviewed some Featured Lists, and this compares well. I think its ready to go into Assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment for Featured List status. Are you ok if I drop it into the Assessment request queue? At least we'll get feedback and suggestions for improvements. cheers Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: Thank you for your attention and time. The edits were intended to improve the content at many levels. As I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of each of the various classes, I'd appreciate your assessment of where it might optimally fit. B-class seems about right, though BA or BL, I do not know. Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: HI, The article was listed as BL-class and I am proceeding to systematically address the recommendations of the reviewer and see if I can take it to AL-class. Many thanks for your advice, suggestions and ongoing edits!! Robert Brukner ( talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello there,
I decided to take on reviewing this article against the BL-Class assessment criteria. Below are notes on how the article could be improved, or in cases needs to be improved, before passing the assessment.
BL1: As I have stated above there are several sections which lack the necessary citations, while most paragraphs have at least one citation, two issues still exist. 1) Not all paragraphs have a valid citation and 2) A single citation is not necessarily sufficient. All information needs to be sourced, where information is sourced from a variety of sources all of these need to be attributed.
BL2: Currently this is fine, but might do with some improvement.
Additional Notes and Ideas: 1. After further review, considering that this list is eventually going after the Featured List level, I have noted down a couple basic ideas that I think will be necessary to achieve FL status.
(a) Provide a brief summary for each of the classes currently active (about 100-200 words or more if necessary). For the historical fleet I think the blurb at the start is fine.
(b) Consider expanding on the current tables to also include armament, armour and/or other general characteristics (no need to go overboard on this) for the active ships (and maybe for the decommissioned Iroquois ones if necessary). Refer to: /info/en/?search=List_of_battlecruisers_of_Russia and /info/en/?search=List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States
(c) Lastly, I think this is actually very important, try to ensure that the images don't break the flow of the list (refer BL3)
Side-note: I highly recommend you visit: /info/en/?search=Category:FL-Class_military_history_articles, there's a few articles in there that have achieved FL status and that deal with ships. They may help direct you with your project.
There's a few FL lists in there that deal with ships and they seem to have one common feature. They are very clean and well-researched. By very-clean I mean that the structure remains consistent throughout and images used sparingly and positioned so that they don't interfere with the article's flow. By well-researched I mean that they contain a fair amount of information that has been succinctly summarized into a single (or couple) paragraph(s).
2. HMCS Saskatoon.jpg <- this is just sitting in the Kingston-class coastal defence vessel paragraph, I think this is just a simple mistake but may be part of an actual image.
3. The 'Weapon systems' paragraph lists a series of shipborne and airborne weapons, are these applicable to the Kingston-class or all of the navy's ships? this section had me quite confused to be honest.
BL3: This is fine. But could use a little (possibly extensive) tweaking. 1. In some cases the images seem to be oddly placed, disrupting the flow of the article. This includes the placement of the images for the topics dealing with Aircraft carriers (Commissioned 1922-1947) and Cruise (Commissioned 1910-1922).
BL4: Just fine. BL5: Refer to BL3.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:
The article deals with, as far as I can tell, all of the topics it needs to quite well. However, before this article can be considered for BL-Class all of the citation needed markers need to be appropriately dealt with. While dealing with this will simultaneously fulfill the requirements for B2, I would recommend expanding on each individual topic (for FL-Class).
In dealing with your last post; The way the article is structured, it almost hybridizes between the two. However I believe it falls firmly in the list-class. I recommend taking a look at: /info/en/?search=List_of_ships_of_the_United_States_Army. It deals with certain topics like a normal article would but also has paragraphs of information in order sections. It's the closest example that I could find to the style you have undertaken. Most other "List of ships of the (insert navy here)" just have a simple list.
One more example: /info/en/?search=List_of_heavy_cruisers_of_Germany
The above example is of a list that has achieved featured status, it goes into quite some detail about Germany's Heavy Cruisers before and during world war II. So it may also be a good link to use as a reference for structure and formatting reasons.
If you need any further help, feel free to put a message either here or on my talk page. Have a good day.
Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The article was moved from Start to BL class. The assessor for BL-class status provided substantial input and recommendations for next steps. I have addressed these and request comment on whether the article is suitable for A List classification. Here are the criteria and my findings.
All thoughts and comments would be greatly welcome Robert Brukner ( talk) 01:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Did my copyedit. I'm going to look into whether those LCIs and HCs are italicised for you. Llammakey ( talk) 11:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: I've exhausted pretty nearly all my references and have done as complete a review as possible. I've deleted a number of entries and clarified others. The secondary sources do no fully agree on the roles, classes, names, use of HMCS, and numbering for numerous auxiliary vessels. HMCS, CNAV and HMC get used almost interchangeably in many instances. At this point I've done what I can with the available resources. Let me know when you've completed any additional edits and then I'll take it over to get assessed to see if we can bump it up a couple of class levels. regards Robert Brukner ( talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: I've been considering other country navy articles and the overall construction of our article in relationship to the Royal Canadian Navy article. The first section of this article is clearly defined, well structured and complete. It is a perfect expansion for the main RCN article, as it provides a very comprehensive explanation and illustration of the current fleet. It is also an article not a simple list. The historic section just doesn't match the standards of the first section, and it drags down the overall quality. Its basically just a list of ship names with photos. So I am going to break the article into two. I'll take the first part for assessment for FA status. I'll drop the second half in Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (Historic) and start to write up text in a manner that is similar to the main Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. That way we can move forward to complete the assessment and "lock down" the current fleet, and then keep fiddling with the historic section to improve it. I've also created three new lists from our current article's data -very simple lists of ships: List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the First World War, List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War and List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Cold War. I've carefully edited the list so that the ships in them are those that fall within those periods only. I hope you like the direction this is going in. There is still so much work to do the the historic fleet article!! Robert Brukner ( talk) 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as this is active fleet list I have elected to delete the destroyer section as their is no active destroyer in the Canadian navy. -- Tempest717 ( talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of current ships of the Royal Canadian Navy 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 |
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
These aren't listed on the Navy website ( http://www.navy.forces.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp)
HMCS Anticosti(II) (MCM 110), and HMCS Moresby (MCM 112)...former Jean Tide and Joyce Tide do not appear in the history either. These two ships were commissioned into service (1989) as a stop gap measure prior to the (MCDV) Kingston class to provide mine sweeping training and coastal defence training, primarily for the Naval Reserve. Both, of the same class, were purchased from Tidewater Marine and refitted in Newfoundland. They were originally offshore supply vessels.
-- 85.68.21.213 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The last three are presumably not real, although the Bonaventure is, but maybe it was retired.
Alright, the above problem is solved...and I added all the ships I could glean off the Navy website (although this computer at work logged me off in the process), but they don't have all of them listed in their history section. There is probably a better way to make this list, but I'm probably not the person to do it :) Adam Bishop 04:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I found a book that would be extremely useful for this page - The Ships of Canada's Naval Forces 1910-1993: A Complete Pictorial History of Canadian Warships, by Ken Macpherson and John Burgess. If it helps, the ISBN is ISBN 0920277918. I don't have time to go through it thoroughly right now (and probably won't for a few weeks, if not more), so if anyone else happens to have a copy of it and wants to do all the work, go right ahead! Adam Bishop 05:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over names that have been reused - just repeat the name or add a number. For example, see Athabaskan. Is there a wikistandard for this? Edmilne 23:38, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
{{shipindex}} and
[[Category:Disambiguation lists of ships]]
at the bottom of the disambiguation list article.
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Royal Canadian Navy was copied or moved into Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy with this edit on 17 August 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to accommodate longer lists of vessels into a more reader-friendly column format. Various US Navy pages use a similar approach, see here and here. If thats not a good thing let me know and I'll undo everything. Robert Brukner ( talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: Hi, I wonder if we ought to take the ships in the Fisherman's Reserve and break them out into their proper naval classifications as aux, tug, patrol, minesweepers, examination, etc.. It would fit with the general approach of other ship lists, bring it into line with rest of the article, and help eliminate a number of duplications and other inconsistencies. What do you think? Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: Thanks for all the corrections you've made. How do you feel about removing wikilinks from the headers in this section, just as you did in the current fleet section, and organizing all the destroyers together as found in the 1922-1948 section? Robert Brukner ( talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: I'm adding some historic and current photo's of some of the larger classes. I'm thinking maybe we could tidy this up a bit more and then get the article assessed and moved up the chain. Thoughts? Robert Brukner ( talk) 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: While there are many things to improve, I've reviewed some Featured Lists, and this compares well. I think its ready to go into Assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment for Featured List status. Are you ok if I drop it into the Assessment request queue? At least we'll get feedback and suggestions for improvements. cheers Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: Thank you for your attention and time. The edits were intended to improve the content at many levels. As I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of each of the various classes, I'd appreciate your assessment of where it might optimally fit. B-class seems about right, though BA or BL, I do not know. Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: HI, The article was listed as BL-class and I am proceeding to systematically address the recommendations of the reviewer and see if I can take it to AL-class. Many thanks for your advice, suggestions and ongoing edits!! Robert Brukner ( talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello there,
I decided to take on reviewing this article against the BL-Class assessment criteria. Below are notes on how the article could be improved, or in cases needs to be improved, before passing the assessment.
BL1: As I have stated above there are several sections which lack the necessary citations, while most paragraphs have at least one citation, two issues still exist. 1) Not all paragraphs have a valid citation and 2) A single citation is not necessarily sufficient. All information needs to be sourced, where information is sourced from a variety of sources all of these need to be attributed.
BL2: Currently this is fine, but might do with some improvement.
Additional Notes and Ideas: 1. After further review, considering that this list is eventually going after the Featured List level, I have noted down a couple basic ideas that I think will be necessary to achieve FL status.
(a) Provide a brief summary for each of the classes currently active (about 100-200 words or more if necessary). For the historical fleet I think the blurb at the start is fine.
(b) Consider expanding on the current tables to also include armament, armour and/or other general characteristics (no need to go overboard on this) for the active ships (and maybe for the decommissioned Iroquois ones if necessary). Refer to: /info/en/?search=List_of_battlecruisers_of_Russia and /info/en/?search=List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States
(c) Lastly, I think this is actually very important, try to ensure that the images don't break the flow of the list (refer BL3)
Side-note: I highly recommend you visit: /info/en/?search=Category:FL-Class_military_history_articles, there's a few articles in there that have achieved FL status and that deal with ships. They may help direct you with your project.
There's a few FL lists in there that deal with ships and they seem to have one common feature. They are very clean and well-researched. By very-clean I mean that the structure remains consistent throughout and images used sparingly and positioned so that they don't interfere with the article's flow. By well-researched I mean that they contain a fair amount of information that has been succinctly summarized into a single (or couple) paragraph(s).
2. HMCS Saskatoon.jpg <- this is just sitting in the Kingston-class coastal defence vessel paragraph, I think this is just a simple mistake but may be part of an actual image.
3. The 'Weapon systems' paragraph lists a series of shipborne and airborne weapons, are these applicable to the Kingston-class or all of the navy's ships? this section had me quite confused to be honest.
BL3: This is fine. But could use a little (possibly extensive) tweaking. 1. In some cases the images seem to be oddly placed, disrupting the flow of the article. This includes the placement of the images for the topics dealing with Aircraft carriers (Commissioned 1922-1947) and Cruise (Commissioned 1910-1922).
BL4: Just fine. BL5: Refer to BL3.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:
The article deals with, as far as I can tell, all of the topics it needs to quite well. However, before this article can be considered for BL-Class all of the citation needed markers need to be appropriately dealt with. While dealing with this will simultaneously fulfill the requirements for B2, I would recommend expanding on each individual topic (for FL-Class).
In dealing with your last post; The way the article is structured, it almost hybridizes between the two. However I believe it falls firmly in the list-class. I recommend taking a look at: /info/en/?search=List_of_ships_of_the_United_States_Army. It deals with certain topics like a normal article would but also has paragraphs of information in order sections. It's the closest example that I could find to the style you have undertaken. Most other "List of ships of the (insert navy here)" just have a simple list.
One more example: /info/en/?search=List_of_heavy_cruisers_of_Germany
The above example is of a list that has achieved featured status, it goes into quite some detail about Germany's Heavy Cruisers before and during world war II. So it may also be a good link to use as a reference for structure and formatting reasons.
If you need any further help, feel free to put a message either here or on my talk page. Have a good day.
Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The article was moved from Start to BL class. The assessor for BL-class status provided substantial input and recommendations for next steps. I have addressed these and request comment on whether the article is suitable for A List classification. Here are the criteria and my findings.
All thoughts and comments would be greatly welcome Robert Brukner ( talk) 01:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Did my copyedit. I'm going to look into whether those LCIs and HCs are italicised for you. Llammakey ( talk) 11:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: I've exhausted pretty nearly all my references and have done as complete a review as possible. I've deleted a number of entries and clarified others. The secondary sources do no fully agree on the roles, classes, names, use of HMCS, and numbering for numerous auxiliary vessels. HMCS, CNAV and HMC get used almost interchangeably in many instances. At this point I've done what I can with the available resources. Let me know when you've completed any additional edits and then I'll take it over to get assessed to see if we can bump it up a couple of class levels. regards Robert Brukner ( talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Llammakey: I've been considering other country navy articles and the overall construction of our article in relationship to the Royal Canadian Navy article. The first section of this article is clearly defined, well structured and complete. It is a perfect expansion for the main RCN article, as it provides a very comprehensive explanation and illustration of the current fleet. It is also an article not a simple list. The historic section just doesn't match the standards of the first section, and it drags down the overall quality. Its basically just a list of ship names with photos. So I am going to break the article into two. I'll take the first part for assessment for FA status. I'll drop the second half in Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (Historic) and start to write up text in a manner that is similar to the main Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. That way we can move forward to complete the assessment and "lock down" the current fleet, and then keep fiddling with the historic section to improve it. I've also created three new lists from our current article's data -very simple lists of ships: List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the First World War, List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War and List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Cold War. I've carefully edited the list so that the ships in them are those that fall within those periods only. I hope you like the direction this is going in. There is still so much work to do the the historic fleet article!! Robert Brukner ( talk) 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as this is active fleet list I have elected to delete the destroyer section as their is no active destroyer in the Canadian navy. -- Tempest717 ( talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)