Talk:HMS Gladiolus (K34)

message: "HMS Gladiolus (K34) was the lead ship of Gladiolus-class corvettes..."
This designation is under dispute here, so any changes should be held in abeyance until it's resolved. 
And as for:-
"(fixed class ID (now if I could just persuade the ignorant to move "Flower" class to the right page...)) "
I'm not ignorant, just un-convinced.
Xyl 54 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statement

message: I've expanded the Service History, as befits a busy ship like Gladiolus; I've also made a couple of changes, which might cause problems. Opinions? (below) Xyl 54 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Uboatnet claims Glad was possibly sunk by U-558 or U-432 on night of 16/17 during the melee, but Edwards is clear; Glad lost contact on night of 15/16, a whole 24 hours earlier, and wasn’t with the convoy that night. And the claim at UBoatnet is based on the supposition that if 558 and 432 claimed hits, they must have hit something, which, given the propensity for the U boat Arm to overclaim, seems a bit iffey.
OTOH Turners speculation that Glad overturned as a result of her refit seems to fly in the face of  the reputation the Flowers had for seaworthiness
OTGH it seems safest to record it as "cause unknown".Xyl 54 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fate

message: I’ve changed this
"Gladiolus was ... the lead ship of her class"
The source given doesn’t say this, it says she was the first corvette to be built, which isn’t quite the same thing.
And I don’t know that "lead ship" is an appropriate way of looking at these mass produced ships which were built simultaneously at many different yards
Which is the lead ship?
The first on the order book? (Anenome was J4100, Asphodel was J1034)
First to be laid down? (Gardenia, Geranium in September 1939)
To be launched? 
Completed ? (Arabis at H+W 5 April, Gladiolus at Smiths on 6th, Periwinkle at H+W on 8th)
Commissioned?
The first pennant number? (Carnation was K00)
I’ve left the link because the explanation at Lead ship is appropriate, but I’m open to suggestions on that.Xyl 54 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead ship

message: The Fate section of the article, which was based on the considerations already mentioned above, was re-written with this edit a while ago.</br>
The problem is that it removes comments from three reliable sources and promotes as definitive a speculative essay from uboat.net.
It also avers that "At the time the cause of her loss was unknown and it was only post war analysis which resulted in U-553 being credited with her sinking" as if the uboat.net essay is the last word on the subject.
On the contrary, Turners comments were made in 2008, and Edwards book was written in 2013, so the difference here isn’t old vs new knowledge, it is the British vs German estimates of what happened.</br>
In any event (to pull the policy/guideline card) uboat.net is a self-published source, and therefore not necessarily reliable for WP purposes; Edwards, as a published historian, is. I have no qualms about using uboat.net, but recognize its bias; and for the sake of a neutral point of view we should record both versions of the story and let people make up their own mind. We certainly shouldn’t be pre-judging the situation. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate, again