Talk:County-class destroyer

message: :I think a lot of the missile data could be removed and used to bulk up the relevant articles. The article says little about the ships themselves. Irondome (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you can't get away from the fact that the ship was built for the missile. It's more the lack of content on why the ships were needed and of coverage of their service that makes the missile info appear excessive. That said, I agree with your recent edit - the stuff trimmed was more appropriate for the missile articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would agree with all of the above points made. Irondome (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too focused on missile systems. 

message: :The well-respected user Nick D introduced me to the phrase. At first I was in denial, but here I thought I must, and follow WP rules in talk follow up. We have lots of interesting new info being introduced into mainspace, but we are sorely lacking in cites. Any IP with pretensions of being a reborn Alfred Mahon could remove this material, and would get away with it. (Not any rebuff to contributing IPs with obvious knowledge, but PLEASE get a username and join the community. Most editors would strongly recommend you do.) Let us not get loose, lets get this good article up to a higher level by being well-cited. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The joy of tag bombing, a.k.a more cites needed! 

message: Many writers see the County GMD's as  destroyers, their workshops and spare part capacity offer 3 months supply and 45 days stores and provisions, cf a cruiser for 70 days( G. Moore. Daring to Devonshire. Warships 2005, pp 111-135). However the County class GMD's appear to have always been regarded as cruisers by the RN officers who served on them and were listed as cruisers by Janes Fighting Ships in the late 1970s and 1980s when John Moore was the editor. They partly seemed to have been concieved as playing the sort of flagship and gunboat role East of Suez that the earlier County class cruisers played in the 1930s  and which the Colony class performed in the 1950-1960 period. The substantial accomodation for an Admiral and his staff and the  sophisticated combination of fire control, gunfire computers and spotting capability for the forward twin gun mounts also seem to me to mark them as a cruiser.
Another factor is that until rather late in the day in the evolution of the Cruiser-Destroyer into the final County design from 1955-59 the alternative option of fitting them out as essentially light all gun cruisers. When Seaslug was first put into the design in 1955 as the new first lord Mountbatten's instruction, provision was also still made for fitting a twin 3inch/70 ( ADM 167 142 Board of Admiralty 1955 & Warship 2005, p 124) as an alternative and even in 1957 the board still considered that the L/70 Bofors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.212.2 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruisers or Destroyers 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: For a better article, the lead needs to be a summary of the whole article. At the moment it's very heavy on  the design considerations (see  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest the whole article needs starting from fresh - like much of Wikipedia's coverage of post war British warship classes, it is full of OR and distractions from the actual topic.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seems to be a lot of facts, but also a lot of opinion involved. Questiobs I'm asking myself. Short of writing from scratch, what could i do? Is the structure right but content wrong or does the whole article need remodelling. Too much on the policy of design and not enough on service? Is there a good article on a post war RN class to serve as a template? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The trouble is it is impossible to distinguish the facts from the opinions - for format  you are probably better looking at pre-war or WW2 Royal Navy warships (particularly destroyers), as some of those articles have passed GA reviews and are less polluted by post-war UK and NZ politics. It may also be helpful asking at WP:MILHIST or WP:SHIPS for help.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improiving the lead paragraphs