This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Type 42 destroyer 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two notes. Firstly, 996 LFA was on the 23s and has been replaced by LFE; the 42s have LFB for their 996 track extractor.
Also, the armament now includes 2 x Mk 44 Minigun and 4 x L7 GPMG for close-in force protection purposes.
Jrwlynch ( talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we really say that an action that occured in 1991 proves that this missile system is not obsolete in 2009? Does anyone have any more recent sources to back up this claim? Also, should this claim really be made in the type 42 article or should it be maintained solely in the Sea Dart article?
I vote to remove this sentence as it stands.
Munchingfoo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
It really does not matter whether editors think Sea Dart is obsolescent or not. What matters is what quotable sources have stated.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to challenge the reference to batch 3 ships having 40 Sea Darts. I can find no source that says that. All ships had 22 Sea Darts. -- Two way time ( talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi All, I wonder how an article of this length could be written without having access to verifiable sources? Can the "key" editors that contributed to this article please add citations, references, bibliography as appropriate? Thanks & regards, DPdH ( talk) 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your reversion on Type 42 destroyer.
Where there is a difference in what several sources say, it is not original research to have footnotes saying what the differences between the sources is.
Where there are several sources that you would expect to be reliable, it is appropriate to record what the differences in sources are using inline citations - this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.
The is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check whose aim is having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Reverting multiple references goes against this project.
The bulk of the text of the articles on modern RN warships have no citations whatsoever and frequent errors. Perhaps it would be better if you put your effort into improving verifiability by replacing unsourced material with material backed by proper inline citations.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have taken account of your objection and have removed the following from the edit you object to:
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is the correct number for the gun, is it 113 or 114 and if this number is disputed lets have the debate about it here. Many of the destroyer articles have been changed to 113 aswell, so if theres a clear source saying its 114 they will need reverting too. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[3] Rcbutcher ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a mistake. The gun is known as a 4.5" gun. 114mm is the equivalent metric measurement. However, the bore of the weapon is actually 4.45", or 113mm. Therefore it is often referred to (incorrectly) as a 4.5" (114mm) gun. So, this is its common name, but the bore is 113mm. See this website for a fair explanation - read to the bottom of the page. Rcbutcher is technically right, but you could also call it by it's common name and not be wrong. I'd suggest "4.5 inch gun" linked to the right page. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Decimal_or_fractional_inches for other examples of weapons whose metric equivalent isn't quite right. Shem ( talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hms Edinburgh returned from her final deployment in March 2013. There are no longer any type 42's in active service in the Royal Navy. [1]
Could be possible to explain the differences between batches ? particullary one and two ? many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 ( talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Type 42 destroyer. 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 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I am American, Navy veteran, and naval Enthusiastic. Compare this ship to the US Perry class FFG.- Both are near the same size physically -displacement, length, beam. See my table- Bold for significantly more space required - greater capability of the ship
equipment | UK Type 42 | US FFG-7 |
---|---|---|
length | 463 ft batch 3 | 453 ft |
beam | 48 ft | 45 ft |
displacement | 4200/ 4800 | 4200 |
missile | Sea Dart 22 or 40 missiles | Mk 13 40x SM-1/harpoon |
main gun | 114 mm fwd | 76 mm amidships |
CIWS | Phalynx | Phalynx |
helicopter | 1x Sea Lynx | 2x SH-60 |
propulsion | 4 gas turbines | 2x LM2500 gas turbines |
shaft/ prop | 2 | 1 |
electrical power | 4 diesel generators | 4 diesel generators |
torpedo tubes | 2 triple 12.75 in | 2 triple 12.75 in |
Radars | both 2D & 3D air search | only 2D SPS-49 |
Wfoj3 ( talk) 22:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Type 42 destroyer 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two notes. Firstly, 996 LFA was on the 23s and has been replaced by LFE; the 42s have LFB for their 996 track extractor.
Also, the armament now includes 2 x Mk 44 Minigun and 4 x L7 GPMG for close-in force protection purposes.
Jrwlynch ( talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we really say that an action that occured in 1991 proves that this missile system is not obsolete in 2009? Does anyone have any more recent sources to back up this claim? Also, should this claim really be made in the type 42 article or should it be maintained solely in the Sea Dart article?
I vote to remove this sentence as it stands.
Munchingfoo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
It really does not matter whether editors think Sea Dart is obsolescent or not. What matters is what quotable sources have stated.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to challenge the reference to batch 3 ships having 40 Sea Darts. I can find no source that says that. All ships had 22 Sea Darts. -- Two way time ( talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi All, I wonder how an article of this length could be written without having access to verifiable sources? Can the "key" editors that contributed to this article please add citations, references, bibliography as appropriate? Thanks & regards, DPdH ( talk) 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your reversion on Type 42 destroyer.
Where there is a difference in what several sources say, it is not original research to have footnotes saying what the differences between the sources is.
Where there are several sources that you would expect to be reliable, it is appropriate to record what the differences in sources are using inline citations - this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.
The is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check whose aim is having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Reverting multiple references goes against this project.
The bulk of the text of the articles on modern RN warships have no citations whatsoever and frequent errors. Perhaps it would be better if you put your effort into improving verifiability by replacing unsourced material with material backed by proper inline citations.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have taken account of your objection and have removed the following from the edit you object to:
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is the correct number for the gun, is it 113 or 114 and if this number is disputed lets have the debate about it here. Many of the destroyer articles have been changed to 113 aswell, so if theres a clear source saying its 114 they will need reverting too. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[3] Rcbutcher ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a mistake. The gun is known as a 4.5" gun. 114mm is the equivalent metric measurement. However, the bore of the weapon is actually 4.45", or 113mm. Therefore it is often referred to (incorrectly) as a 4.5" (114mm) gun. So, this is its common name, but the bore is 113mm. See this website for a fair explanation - read to the bottom of the page. Rcbutcher is technically right, but you could also call it by it's common name and not be wrong. I'd suggest "4.5 inch gun" linked to the right page. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Decimal_or_fractional_inches for other examples of weapons whose metric equivalent isn't quite right. Shem ( talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hms Edinburgh returned from her final deployment in March 2013. There are no longer any type 42's in active service in the Royal Navy. [1]
Could be possible to explain the differences between batches ? particullary one and two ? many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 ( talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Type 42 destroyer. 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 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I am American, Navy veteran, and naval Enthusiastic. Compare this ship to the US Perry class FFG.- Both are near the same size physically -displacement, length, beam. See my table- Bold for significantly more space required - greater capability of the ship
equipment | UK Type 42 | US FFG-7 |
---|---|---|
length | 463 ft batch 3 | 453 ft |
beam | 48 ft | 45 ft |
displacement | 4200/ 4800 | 4200 |
missile | Sea Dart 22 or 40 missiles | Mk 13 40x SM-1/harpoon |
main gun | 114 mm fwd | 76 mm amidships |
CIWS | Phalynx | Phalynx |
helicopter | 1x Sea Lynx | 2x SH-60 |
propulsion | 4 gas turbines | 2x LM2500 gas turbines |
shaft/ prop | 2 | 1 |
electrical power | 4 diesel generators | 4 diesel generators |
torpedo tubes | 2 triple 12.75 in | 2 triple 12.75 in |
Radars | both 2D & 3D air search | only 2D SPS-49 |
Wfoj3 ( talk) 22:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)