This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arleigh Burke-class 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 |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 30, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Arleigh Burke-class destoyers are hardened against
electromagnetic pulses? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is now approx. 95kB in size. Perhaps, as per
WP:TOOBIG, we should look at splitting?
The table listing of ships alone is almost 30kB, and would be both the easiest and most obvious content to spin out. I'm happy to do it if there are no objections, or if someone else would strongly prefer to do it themselves. Thoughts? -
wolf 22:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Giving this thread a bump as almost 3 years later, the list is up to 92 entries and the article size is now 175kB+. Thoughts anyone? - wolf 08:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Pinging BilCat & Fnlayson w/ regards to their previous replies to this thread just above, but would like to hear from others as well. Should we consider a split here? (perhaps a List of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers...?) Any other thoughts on this? - wolf 14:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with this split. Can I just check we aren't proposing further splitting? Per WP:SIZERULE (word count) the article is fine. Mark83 ( talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Findingmoney100:, I did not find "The class's electronics are hardened against electromagnetic pulses (EMPs)" in the citation which follows the sentence. Bruxton ( talk) 20:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone recently added Flight IA under the Variants and Ships in class sections, citing this. This would mean five variants (Flights I, IA, II, IIA, III). navy.mil itself does not mention a Flight IA, only supporting four variants (Flights I, II, IIA, III). I so far cannot find any source mentioning an Arleigh Burke class Flight IA outside of that destroyerhistory.org website and this CRS report.
I'm sure that, very technically, DDGs 52–71 are considered "Flight IA"—this same technical sense leaves DDG-51 as the sole Flight I ship, as you can see under the Variants section.
Flight IA not being mentioned anywhere in prose or in the class template doesn't help either.
Thoughts on this? Integrate Flight IA or keep DDGs 51–71 as Flight I? Findingmoney100 ( talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I just visited the DDG52 at fleet week in Seattle and they claimed this one was launched or commissioned before DDG 51 because of some issue with DDG 51.
so that is consistent with there being a difference between 51 and later flight 1. I don't have an article to cite, so I am talking. 71.212.153.254 ( talk) 03:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox armament, ODIN and HELIOS aren't exactly guns. It would be more appropriate for them to be in their own heading named "Directed energy weapons:" or "Lasers:" or something like that. Starting a topic just bc this would be the first warship class article to have such a heading in its infobox armament. Findingmoney100 ( talk) 05:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
There are oceans of inappropriate capitalization throughout the article, and some of the most prominent are in the infobox, ex. "Tomahawk Cruise Missile" instead of "Tomahawk cruise missile". I checked some other USN ship class articles and many of those have the same problem, yet while I'm energetic enough to make a long pass through this article, I can't do them all. I wouldn't use a chainsaw; my general principle is to observe how the target article for the named item capitalizes it, and respect that. Any objections if I clean this up here? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 00:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
In a similar light to the previous topic, there's several acronyms that are defined but are never used (e.g., "AAW", "NGFS", "ISR"). Any opposition to removing them? Findingmoney100 ( talk) 01:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it's time we start thinking about updating the provided cost figure. The current figure of $1.843 billion for DDGs 114–116 and explanatory notes were written in 2011, and subsequently rely on an RL32109 report from 2011. Especially now that Flight IIA delivery is nearly complete and it's now entirely Flight III ships being procured from here on out, which I would expect cost substantially more than IIAs. RL32109 was just updated a week ago ( link), so now may be a perfect time to address this. I haven't read it in-depth yet but it does plainly say "DDG-51s currently cost about $2.2 billion each to procure." Findingmoney100 ( talk) 04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Citations
Citations
Notes
The UPL states that procuring two DDG-51s rather than one DDG-51 in FY2022 would require an additional $1,659.2 million (i.e., about $1.7 billion) in shipbuilding funding. That figure is not the cost of the second DDG-51—the second DDG-51’s procurement cost would be roughly $2.0 billion. Adding the second DDG-51, however, would reduce the estimated procurement cost of the first DDG-51 due to the resulting increased production economies of scale.
Also wanted to add for the OP that WP is not a 24 hour news site, we are not required to make sure that each article has only the latest information regarding a subject. As an encyclopaedia, ( and a paperless one at that) it's perfectly reasonable, and even useful, to maintain content from times past (be it weeks, months, years, millennia, etc., to provide a historical perspective of a subject.
tl;dr - it is not always needed, or even helpful, to remove older sourced content, when adding newer content. (jmho) - wolf 07:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arleigh Burke-class 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 |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 30, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Arleigh Burke-class destoyers are hardened against
electromagnetic pulses? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is now approx. 95kB in size. Perhaps, as per
WP:TOOBIG, we should look at splitting?
The table listing of ships alone is almost 30kB, and would be both the easiest and most obvious content to spin out. I'm happy to do it if there are no objections, or if someone else would strongly prefer to do it themselves. Thoughts? -
wolf 22:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Giving this thread a bump as almost 3 years later, the list is up to 92 entries and the article size is now 175kB+. Thoughts anyone? - wolf 08:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Pinging BilCat & Fnlayson w/ regards to their previous replies to this thread just above, but would like to hear from others as well. Should we consider a split here? (perhaps a List of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers...?) Any other thoughts on this? - wolf 14:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with this split. Can I just check we aren't proposing further splitting? Per WP:SIZERULE (word count) the article is fine. Mark83 ( talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Findingmoney100:, I did not find "The class's electronics are hardened against electromagnetic pulses (EMPs)" in the citation which follows the sentence. Bruxton ( talk) 20:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone recently added Flight IA under the Variants and Ships in class sections, citing this. This would mean five variants (Flights I, IA, II, IIA, III). navy.mil itself does not mention a Flight IA, only supporting four variants (Flights I, II, IIA, III). I so far cannot find any source mentioning an Arleigh Burke class Flight IA outside of that destroyerhistory.org website and this CRS report.
I'm sure that, very technically, DDGs 52–71 are considered "Flight IA"—this same technical sense leaves DDG-51 as the sole Flight I ship, as you can see under the Variants section.
Flight IA not being mentioned anywhere in prose or in the class template doesn't help either.
Thoughts on this? Integrate Flight IA or keep DDGs 51–71 as Flight I? Findingmoney100 ( talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I just visited the DDG52 at fleet week in Seattle and they claimed this one was launched or commissioned before DDG 51 because of some issue with DDG 51.
so that is consistent with there being a difference between 51 and later flight 1. I don't have an article to cite, so I am talking. 71.212.153.254 ( talk) 03:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox armament, ODIN and HELIOS aren't exactly guns. It would be more appropriate for them to be in their own heading named "Directed energy weapons:" or "Lasers:" or something like that. Starting a topic just bc this would be the first warship class article to have such a heading in its infobox armament. Findingmoney100 ( talk) 05:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
There are oceans of inappropriate capitalization throughout the article, and some of the most prominent are in the infobox, ex. "Tomahawk Cruise Missile" instead of "Tomahawk cruise missile". I checked some other USN ship class articles and many of those have the same problem, yet while I'm energetic enough to make a long pass through this article, I can't do them all. I wouldn't use a chainsaw; my general principle is to observe how the target article for the named item capitalizes it, and respect that. Any objections if I clean this up here? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 00:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
In a similar light to the previous topic, there's several acronyms that are defined but are never used (e.g., "AAW", "NGFS", "ISR"). Any opposition to removing them? Findingmoney100 ( talk) 01:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it's time we start thinking about updating the provided cost figure. The current figure of $1.843 billion for DDGs 114–116 and explanatory notes were written in 2011, and subsequently rely on an RL32109 report from 2011. Especially now that Flight IIA delivery is nearly complete and it's now entirely Flight III ships being procured from here on out, which I would expect cost substantially more than IIAs. RL32109 was just updated a week ago ( link), so now may be a perfect time to address this. I haven't read it in-depth yet but it does plainly say "DDG-51s currently cost about $2.2 billion each to procure." Findingmoney100 ( talk) 04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Citations
Citations
Notes
The UPL states that procuring two DDG-51s rather than one DDG-51 in FY2022 would require an additional $1,659.2 million (i.e., about $1.7 billion) in shipbuilding funding. That figure is not the cost of the second DDG-51—the second DDG-51’s procurement cost would be roughly $2.0 billion. Adding the second DDG-51, however, would reduce the estimated procurement cost of the first DDG-51 due to the resulting increased production economies of scale.
Also wanted to add for the OP that WP is not a 24 hour news site, we are not required to make sure that each article has only the latest information regarding a subject. As an encyclopaedia, ( and a paperless one at that) it's perfectly reasonable, and even useful, to maintain content from times past (be it weeks, months, years, millennia, etc., to provide a historical perspective of a subject.
tl;dr - it is not always needed, or even helpful, to remove older sourced content, when adding newer content. (jmho) - wolf 07:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)