Talk:List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy

message: The listing of vessels includes the following abbreviations which do not link to an article SSI , PFI , and AT.  The most I could find is that the prefix SS is the a hull classification for a submersible vessel.  Could somebody with a better knowledge of naval engineering please find a home for these links?  --Cjs56 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SSI is a variant of the Kilo class submarine.  I am not sure if Iran has a total of 6 Kilo subs (the 3 Kilos and the 3 SSI's)or if someone read the source material and assumed "3 Kilos and 3 SSI's" were a total of 6 subs, instead of reading it to be that the 3 Kilos were SSI variants for a total of 3 subs.  What I can find so far shows that Iran may have 3 SSK variants and 3 SSI variants of the Kilo class sub, for a total of six Kilo class subs.  192.73.53.5 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: Ok...there is no PROOF iran has six kilos...i have multiple sources that say only received 3...including one that has the entire KILO shiplist including exported ones....until someone provides a solid source for Iran having six kilos i will continue to correct this....for example...on the 1st link next to the kilos, that site says iran has 3 kilos and 3 "SSI" subs...SSI is for one thing no known submarine abbreviation...furthmore if they were kilos why wounldnt the site just say iran has 6 kilos? Next that same site www.globalsecurity.org...has a shiplist of all Kilos and iran only got 3. Eagle07 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Kilos 

message: There seems to be close to zero evidence for the existence of a "Shahid Qandi" destroyer.
Iran seems to have no active destroyers, although they call their frigates 'destroyers'.
There seem to be no references to this Shahid Qandi besides a few very recent articles claiming it passed through the Suez Canal.  (But no references to it existing otherwise.) It also appears that the ship that passed through the Suez Canal is probably the frigate Alvand, hull #71.
This seems far below the level of proof required for an encyclopedia.
72.255.47.159 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be a large number of news reports about it, but I think they are all parroting Iranian sourced information on the name of the "destroyer". The Alvand went through last year, so it's difficult to tell if images and video are from then, being reused, or recent. Confusingly, Israeli sources are calling them "Shahid Naqdi" destroyers. The entry should probably be removed per WP:RECENTISM until the confusion clears up. (Hohum @) 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a large hunt around and as mentioned above, despite the large number of news reports, they are all just re-quoting one another and the only source of the name Shahid Qandi is from the Islamic Republic itself. All of the pictures of the 'destroyer' in the Suez canal are of the Alvand (71). I also found a so-called picture of the "Shahid Qandi" in port, which was actually the Jamaran (76). It is possible than Iran has renamed one of their ships and not told anyone, it wouldn't be out of character, but until we can find a more credible source that Iran has suddenly acquired a destroyer from thin air I am removing the reference. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyers 

message: Why are these classes still listed? All three are no longer in commission and are due to be scrapped. I think it is a little disingenuous to list them under current ships even if they are described as "not active". If they aren't going to be coming back into service then surely they should be removed? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are mothballed/inactive, perhaps they should be listed, but their status noted (perhaps in a separate section). If they are permanently inactive/scrapped then remove? (Hohum @) 16:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damavand-class & Babr-class destroyers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070501200658/http://www.ipcs.org:80/US_related_articles2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1999&military=1016&status=article&mod=b to http://www.ipcs.org/US_related_articles2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1999&military=1016&status=article&mod=b
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy. 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/20090608162046/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96674§ionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96674§ionid=351020101
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522080430/http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8612030407 to http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8612030407
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy. 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/20110612173115/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q5O98G0&show_article=1&cat=0 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q5O98G0&show_article=1&cat=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See this edit, which I just made on the talk page of a related article. I came here to take a look at the situation, and the first thing I noticed was Reference number 1, which read: 
Note "Retrieved 2010-06-06" there, and note that the title of this article includes the word "current". 
I know next to nothing about the topic of this article, and I've only just glanced at it and that one related article I linked above, but it seems clear to me that there's a problem in there somewhere. 
Offhand, I'm not sure that it is a solvable problem. Without reading further in the cited sources than I have, it looks to me as if this article has a similar informational issue to the unrelated article Abortion law. That article is also a "list of" article, though it is not named as such. That article relies heavily on one single outdated source and is supplemented by more current information about individual items in the list. That article, though, is about a wider issue than this one, its individual items are more diverse, and the number of editors who are informed about the topic and interested in updating info on the individual items is much larger than is the case here.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see only one good source for the information in this article:  Unlike that other article I mentioned (and unlike this article), that source is updated regularly to keep it current ("current" -- there's that word again -- see WP:DATED, MOS:DATED, WP:AS OF). The version of that source which was online when I wrote this paragraph said, "Page last modified: 02-12-2019 18:01:39 ZULU" (as I write this, the most recently archived version of that URL at archive.org is dated 19 December, 2019, so I guess "02-12-2019" there means 2 December, not 12 February).
Synchronizing this page more often with that source is not a solution to this problem -- see WP:NOTMIRROR. It seems to me that it would be better abandon the "list of current" approach here and just present a general article about this topic which refers readers to that outside source and, if they exist, other regularly maintained sources for current details ("current" -- there's that word again). Does anybody see a better solution to the problem? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with outdated info 

message: A new Sina Class and the I.R.I.N.S Makran https://www.eurasiareview.com/13012021-iran-navy-to-receive-new-warships/ Jw10u36engeve25be768ko27siw37ppql639sns918nvzfgzb (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 new vessels 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion