Talk:Daring-class destroyer (1949)

message: When first ordered and built, all the RN Darings had "I" flag superiors, and were only later re-allocated new pennant numbers with "D" flag superiors. This does indicate the error in usuing pennant numbers as a means of identifying wartime vessels in Wiki-article titles, instead of using the years of launch. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think year of launch is far better, because some nations (e.g. India) have given new vessels the same name and pennant number as previous vessels.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennant Numbers 

message: I'e just filled in the checklist for B-class assessment under SHIPS and MILHIST. In my view, the article meets criteria 2-5, but needs citations in the "Design", "Construction#British" and "British Modifications" sections to meet B1. B2 is a borderline pass in my opinion: Content is needed on the design differences between the British and Australian vessels, the Australian modernisation, and the ships in Peruvian service, but I think the article as it stands is a reasonable coverage of the subject. -- saberwyn 00:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assess for B-class

message: I don't think the model section adds anything at all - we wouldn't dream of having a "photographs" section or a "prints" section.  Furthermore it's entirely unverified.  My real gripe, though, is with these sections turning up in multiple articles as boilerplate text. I'd like to remove it. Shem (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who make model ships might disagree about whether this information adds something or not.  I don't like it is not a valid reason to remove a section from an article. - Nick Thorne talk 10:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying I like it, either.  What I am asking is for you to provide valid reasons to remove content from an article.  I will go with the consensus on this, I just think that the regulars on this page (which does not include me, IMO) should get an opportunity to comment on the proposed deletion of an entire section before the fact rather than after.  I suggest we wait for a few days to see if anyone else wants to comment on the proposed change.  If we get no comments, then I will not oppose.  BTW, I have renamed this section for clarity. - Nick Thorne talk 11:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of ship model sections in articles was discussed in a general sense here. The consensus was they are not notable for inclusion, and have been removed by other editors, for example here and here, and with more reasoning outlined here. Benea (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I think sections detailing model kits in warship articles are miniature on the same level as "In Popular Culture" sections. If reliable published sources can show that the design/manufacture of Daring-class model kits is important to understanding the warships, but in this case (and I image most others), we have an unsourced section detailing that toy and model companies produced toys and models of these ships, because that's what toy and model companies do. -- saberwyn 22:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete the Models section

message: HMAS Vendetta was not the only Australian ship to serve in the Vietnam conflict. HMAS's Melbourne, Sydney and Boonaroo also made several voyages to the war zone. Ref. "Australia's Navy in Vietnam" by John Perryman & Brett Mitchell published by Topmill Pty Ltd. Silverwater, NSW, Australia. 2012. OK if you want to be pedantic the Melbourne & Sydney weren't built in Australia.The Dart (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the phrasing. About 15 RAN warships were involved in the Vietnam War, plus an aviation unit (more if you count the occasionally embarked helicopters aboard Sydney), a CDT, and assorted hangars on. The key word, as you said, is -built; Vendetta was the only ship assembled in Australia to be directly involved in the shooty end of the conflict (the only other RAN warships to see combat during the war were the three US-build Perth class destroyers). -- saberwyn 11:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

text: No probs, that's fine now, just thought I'd leave it to you to phrase it your way.The Dart (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vendetta in Vietnam 

message: Just a curious question, how come this class is named after HMS Daring (D05)? She was neither the first ship of this class to be launched (Decoy was launched 29 March, Daring 10 August) nor the first to be commissioned (Diamond was commissioned 21 February, Daring 8 March). /Esquilo (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead ship?