Talk:List of current ships of the Royal Canadian Navy

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fleet of the Royal Canadian 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/20090805075041/http://www.defense.gouv.fr:80/dga/votre_espace/presse/communiques/2007/batiment_francais_hydroglisseurs_et_helicopteres_americains_certification_acquise to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/votre_espace/presse/communiques/2007/batiment_francais_hydroglisseurs_et_helicopteres_americains_certification_acquise
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609180718/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/vol_8/vol8_40/840_10.pdf to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/vol_8/vol8_40/840_10.pdf
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 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fleet of the Royal Canadian 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/20070711152620/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2007/07/09/arctic-cda.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/09/arctic-cda.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091130223348/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/north/story/2009/11/26/nanisivik-contract.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/11/26/nanisivik-contract.html
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 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've tried to accommodate longer lists of vessels into a more reader-friendly column format. Various US Navy pages use a similar approach, see  here and here. If thats not a good thing let me know and I'll undo everything.Robert Brukner (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the columns are a good idea. Thank you for the edit. Llammakey (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Lists into columns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fleet of the Royal Canadian 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070606143637/http://www.forces.gc.ca:80/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp to http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070717055310/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2007/05/13/arctic-patrol.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/13/arctic-patrol.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070729022543/http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/topic2.php to http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/topic2.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I wonder if we ought to take the ships in the Fisherman's Reserve and break them out into their proper naval classifications as aux, tug, patrol, minesweepers, examination, etc.. It would fit with the general approach of other ship lists, bring it into line with rest of the article, and help eliminate a number of duplications and other inconsistencies. What do you think?
Robert Brukner (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. However there should be an asterisk or double cross symbol that should denote they were part of the Fisherman's Reserve and a note what the Fisherman's Reserve was, just to keep that information somewhere without swamping the section with text on every single ship. Llammakey (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisherman's Reserve 

message: Thanks for all the corrections you've made. How do you feel about removing wikilinks from the headers in this section, just as you did in the current fleet section, and organizing all the destroyers together as found in the 1922-1948 section? Robert Brukner (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the only destroyers post-1945 were the Iroqouis. The St. Laurents and so forth were destroyer escorts, which were the NATO equivalent name at the time for the modern frigate. Individual sources call them destroyers, destroyers escorts and some even refer to the classes as frigates as they were essentially just Canadianized versions of the Whitby-class frigates of the UK. You can merge all the destroyer escorts together, as everything from the St. Laurent to the Annapolis class were one base design with modifications. But the Iroquois and any other destroyers that came post war were different beasts all together. As for wikilinks in titles, most of them are class names and they should be placed on the side like the earlier commissioning sections. Llammakey (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification headers and structure 1949-1989 

message: I'm adding some historic and current photo's of some of the larger classes. I'm thinking maybe we could tidy this up a bit more and then get the article assessed and moved up the chain. Thoughts? Robert Brukner (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Keep in mind that the photos themselves have to be properly sourced too. Llammakey (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm popping in photos now, plus tidying up, and placing categories against all vessels and sub-categories. Unfortunately, there are a heck of a lot of red wikilinks. That will take ages to fix up. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind those directives from WPSHIPS and WPMILHIST as to what is considered notable. There has to be reliable secondary sources giving broad coverage to the subject. So the destroyers, corvettes and aircraft carriers all have multiple books about them. I doubt many of the WWII tugs and auxiliaries do. Some might and those deserve pages, however the vast majority do not. Keep them in the list, but do not make pages for them. As for ships of the Fisherman's Reserve that were linked before; down the line I intended to make a page about the Fisherman's Reserve and link those ships to it, however that's a project for another day. Llammakey (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  Yep, go ahead. Good luck with the assessment. Llammakey (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submitted the article for formal assessment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I'm curious to see how the assessments compare. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed this article aiming for a B(BL?)-class on the MilHist Project site, I had a look at it and noticed that there are a lot of small paragraphs and a couple large paragraphs which lack citations, I put citation needed markers on those. I am about to go through the entire article, I will check it against the BL criteria since that seems to be what this article is after. Will post my notes below, or if necessary will create a second heading and the notes will be under there. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos and Assessment 

message: Hello there,
I decided to take on reviewing this article against the BL-Class assessment criteria. Below are notes on how the article could be improved, or in cases needs to be improved, before passing the assessment.
BL1: As I have stated above there are several sections which lack the necessary citations, while most paragraphs have at least one citation, two issues still exist. 1) Not all paragraphs have a valid citation and 2) A single citation is not necessarily sufficient. All information needs to be sourced, where information is sourced from a variety of sources all of these need to be attributed.
BL2: Currently this is fine, but might do with some improvement.
Additional Notes and Ideas:
1. After further review, considering that this list is eventually going after the Featured List level, I have noted down a couple basic ideas that I think will be necessary to achieve FL status.
(a) Provide a brief summary for each of the classes currently active (about 100-200 words or more if necessary). For the historical fleet I think the blurb at the start is fine. 
(b) Consider expanding on the current tables to also include armament, armour and/or other general characteristics (no need to go overboard on this) for the active ships (and maybe for the decommissioned Iroquois ones if necessary).  
Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battlecruisers_of_Russia and 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States
(c) Lastly, I think this is actually very important, try to ensure that the images don't break the flow of the list (refer BL3)
Side-note: I highly recommend you visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FL-Class_military_history_articles, there's a few articles in there that have achieved FL status and that deal with ships. They may help direct you with your project.
There's a few FL lists in there that deal with ships and they seem to have one common feature. They are very clean and well-researched. By very-clean I mean that the structure remains consistent throughout and images used sparingly and positioned so that they don't interfere with the article's flow. By well-researched I mean that they contain a fair amount of information that has been succinctly summarized into a single (or couple) paragraph(s).
2. HMCS Saskatoon.jpg <- this is just sitting in the Kingston-class coastal defence vessel paragraph, I think this is just a simple mistake but may be part of an actual image.
3. The 'Weapon systems' paragraph lists a series of shipborne and airborne weapons, are these applicable to the Kingston-class or all of the navy's ships? this section had me quite confused to be honest.
:(a) The Weapon systems section left me confused, but I figure that the topic deals with systems across all of the navy. Maybe add a little blurb saying so? 
:(b) Also why have the Support and auxiliary vessels dealt with after the Weapon systems instead of before? 
BL3: This is fine. But could use a little (possibly extensive) tweaking.
1. In some cases the images seem to be oddly placed, disrupting the flow of the article. This includes the placement of the images for the topics dealing with Aircraft carriers (Commissioned 1922-1947) and Cruise (Commissioned 1910-1922).
BL4: Just fine.
BL5: Refer to BL3.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary:
The article deals with, as far as I can tell, all of the topics it needs to quite well. However, before this article can be considered for BL-Class all of the citation needed markers need to be appropriately dealt with. While dealing with this will simultaneously fulfill the requirements for B2, I would recommend expanding on each individual topic (for FL-Class).
In dealing with your last post; The way the article is structured, it almost hybridizes between the two. However I believe it falls firmly in the list-class. I recommend taking a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_United_States_Army. It deals with certain topics like a normal article would but also has paragraphs of information in order sections. It's the closest example that I could find to the style you have undertaken. Most other "List of ships of the (insert navy here)" just have a simple list.
One more example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavy_cruisers_of_Germany
The above example is of a list that has achieved featured status, it goes into quite some detail about Germany's Heavy Cruisers before and during world war II. So it may also be a good link to use as a reference for structure and formatting reasons.
If you need any further help, feel free to put a message either here or on my talk page. Have a good day.
Mr rnddude (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is far more than I was expecting from the assessment. Thank you (!!) for spending so much time on such a thorough review and providing detailed recommendations. I am working through your suggestions now. In the short term with the aim of securing BL-class, I am completing the B1 requirements you've outlined and I'll shift the article to BL (self-assessed). After I work through all the other matters you've identified would you be able to assess the article for AL-class? Robert Brukner (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note that the convention is for independent assessment of the BL-class. So I have NOT altered the class and request your re assessment. I have addressed the key issues you brought up that should satisfy the BL-class listing. I continue to work on the other suggestions you have made in regard to progressing the article to FL-Class. Kind regards Robert Brukner (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine, I took a look through. All the citation needed markers have been cleared. I note that you've added a fair amount of information for the various classes and cleaned up some of the images. Re-assessed to BL-Class. The MilHist project has its own requirements for A-Class assessment, they're particularly high because they have the intention of getting any A-class articles (list as well I assume) to as close as possible to Featured. One thing, A class can take a while since a minimum of three (usually) reviewers need to look at it. One last thing, while I was looking through the list, reference 1 had an invalid error (I fixed by simply trying to edit, don't have a clue what happened.) and source 17 has a Missing or empty|Title. Not an issue, just something I noted.Mr rnddude (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, again!  I've corrected all the citation errors. I've also systematically addressed every recommendation you made in the first round. I am going over the article in fine detail again, and trying to carefully match it against the AL-class and FL-class requirements. I hope to bring it forward for AL-class assessment in the near future. Robert Brukner (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BL-Class Assessment Notes (For the Military History Project Site) 

message: I've exhausted pretty nearly all my references and have done as complete a review as possible. I've deleted a number of entries and clarified others. The secondary sources do no fully agree on the roles, classes, names, use of HMCS, and numbering for numerous auxiliary vessels. HMCS, CNAV and HMC get used almost interchangeably in many instances. At this point I've done what I can with the available resources. Let me know when you've completed any additional edits and then I'll take it over to get assessed to see if we can bump it up a couple of class levels.  regards Robert Brukner (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. That being said, on the current fleet page, you could make mention of the historical fleets and significant expansions and ship classes added. For example in a section about the Fleet and World War I period mention that the majority were converted yachts and auxiliary vessels with the exception of the two cruisers until late in the war when Canada added its first purpose built war vessels in the Battle class. Same kind of thing for the WWII and Cold War eras, don't give too much detail but give some context as to how the fleet has ebbed and flowed until the present. You're not giving a history of the RCN, more an accounting of the size and quality of vessel and fleet through time. Llammakey (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks. Great ideas. I've been wondering how to build out the historic material. I figure focusing on the expansion and contraction would add a lot, along with an explanation of how the RCN fit within the British Empire, RN etc.. would help as well. There was so much integration in the early decades that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between what was "Canadian" as distinct from "Empire", or "RCN" from "RN". I've taken all the articles and lists to assessment and am starting to get feedback. So, I'll do what I can to integrate those suggestions as well. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment next steps 

message: Seeing as this is active fleet list I have elected to delete the destroyer section as their is no active destroyer in the Canadian navy.
--Tempest717 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyers 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion