# Talk:Dunkerque-class battleship

I have noticed that much of the development history of the class is duplicated each of the individual ships. This seems like a recipe for unnecessary work; if one article gets improved, it'll be necessary to remember to do the other one (and any other places where it is duplicated.) It seems easier to keep class specific information to the class article, and let the ship articles concentrate on ship history and other elements that make them unique.
EDIT: At the very least, instances of duplication should be radically downsized into a summary, as per Wikipedia:SUMMARY. I also note that USS Iowa (BB-61), a featured article, does something like that. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (particularly including downsizing into a summary - one line for each subsection should work) - plus there is material (not copyedited) here that is a duplicate of that found in the Richelieu class battleship article (copyedited), as you noted there. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tried summarizing the class history for French battleship Dunkerque. I have not checked the "Design' section for that article, but if there are no unique parts then it seems it could be done away with entirely. If there are unique parts, it might be better to integrate them directly into the ship's history ("this was changed at this time" and that sort of thing.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and agreed! I've done a partial copyedit on the start of the History section summary (the Development subsection); you might take a look at the changes. Allens (talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've overhauled French battleship Dunkerque and cut down the technical details into a much shorter section with a {{main}} link to this article. I plan to improve the Strasbourg and class articles along similar lines in the relatively near future, and would like working with anyone else interested. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Relatively near future"...like 7 years later... Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dunkerque-class battleship. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829135609/http://www.bobhenneman.info/DunkerqueClassHistory.htm to http://www.bobhenneman.info/DunkerqueClassHistory.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

From my memory , joining the Free France Force wasn't on the ultimatum .
It was 1 ) scuttle ,2)  sail to a "safe " neutral shore , 3 )  to the caribean , 4) join the british in the fight
De Gaulle wasn't involved in this mess and thake a serious grieff against the british  prime minister
regard 2A01:CB00:456:9C00:715A:E48A:70A0:FA02 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)