Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

message: The article is now approx. 95kB in size. Perhaps, as per WP:TOOBIG, we should look at splitting?The table listing of ships alone is almost 30kB, and would be both the easiest and most obvious content to spin out. I'm happy to do it if there are no objections, or if someone else would strongly prefer to do it themselves. Thoughts? - wolf 22:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not that long an article by screen length. I'd wait until it gets way above 100kB. BilCat (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

text: * Yes, it would need to get well above 100K to justify starting a new article for the split.  Abbreviating in the table and trimming in places could probably remove 10 kB from the total size.  But the Size guideline is for readable prose, not total article size with refs, templates and such. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I was just reading Nick's GA review and based on that, this article needs, (and will hopefully get), more content. Regardless, it will grow, and at some point, something will need to be split off. But, I agree with both your points, and there is no hurry. Thanks for the replies. - wolf 01:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks and fair point. For splitting content off, the Development section is the longest and seems like the best one to split in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

text: - Guys? Anything? - wolf 17:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The list can certainly be split out. I personally believe that WP:TOOBIG is received wisdom from ye olde darke ages, yet lists are a natural place to start (and perhaps in this case, end). If I have time today I can even do it myself, but it should be a simple task for anyone else. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I now have a draft in my sandbox open to review/revision by anyone. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good start. The list article can and should have more content other than the table, but that will come. Meanwhile, we know that splitting just the table from this page will shave off 40kB, which is just what it needs. Cheers - wolf 02:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! And yes, as for additional content, I'm happy to handle the mechanical process of getting the list into article space and making the appropriate changes to this article to point to it; anything after that is at the discretion of this community. BTW— I've discovered that Template:US Navy navbox doesn't currently have a clean way to point to class-specific lists of hulls; I personally don't think that it's a big issue, yet I wanted to mention here in case someone does care. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. - wolf 05:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Going for it, aye. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Nah, I think we're good for now. - wolf 15:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size

message: , I did not find "The class's electronics are hardened against electromagnetic pulses (EMPs)" in the citation which follows the sentence. Bruxton (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a book source for the line. Bruxton (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saunders 2009 ref at the end of the paragraph was the source for that info, but I guess I should've put it after that sentence as well. But thanks for addressing this with a different source. Findingmoney100 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMP 

message: Someone recently added Flight IA under the Variants and Ships in class sections, citing this. This would mean five variants (Flights I, IA, II, IIA, III). navy.mil itself does not mention a Flight IA, only supporting four variants (Flights I, II, IIA, III). I so far cannot find any source mentioning an Arleigh Burke class Flight IA outside of that destroyerhistory.org website and this CRS report.
I'm sure that, very technically, DDGs 52–71 are considered "Flight IA"—this same technical sense leaves DDG-51 as the sole Flight I ship, as you can see under the Variants section.
Flight IA not being mentioned anywhere in prose or in the class template doesn't help either.
Thoughts on this? Integrate Flight IA or keep DDGs 51–71 as Flight I? Findingmoney100 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that change myself and wondered about it, so thanks for starting this discussion. In the CRS report that you link the only appearance of the "Flight IA" term is in a quote from a Forbes article; the CRS report itself consistently uses just "Flight I" in its own discussion. I checked the declassified DoD Selective Acquisition Reports, and they say "DDGs 51-71 represent the original design and are designated as Flight I ships." A Janes article I checked also did not use the "Flight IA" designation. Just when I thought there was no good justification for using Flight IA I saw that an old copy of World Navy Review that I checked does refer to DDG-51 as Flight I and 52-71 as Flight IA. Nonetheless, because most reliable sources refer to DDG 51-71 as Flight I and all of the US Navy sources I checked do not use the Flight IA term, I favor removing the Flight IA terminology recently introduced into this article. —RP88 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple points; I believe it was  who changed the "Flight" column to "IA", so they should probably be pinged to explain their edit and support it. Also, had a look at the Forbes article, and the author is a "contributor" as opposed to a "staff writer", and per WP:RSP, that means the article isn't considered reliable, which might negate the CRS source. Since the support for this "Flight IA" seems tenuous at best, it hasn't come up in the 20 years we've had this article, nor has the Navy used it in the 30+ years the Burkes have been in service, so under these circumstances, it doesn't seem we should be adding this to the article right now. (JMHO) - wolf 08:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this is a GA, we should remove the material until it has been justified. The edit history has gotten a little tangled by now but I  have done so.Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. - wolf 10:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight IA 

message: I just visited the DDG52 at fleet week in Seattle and they claimed this one was launched or commissioned before DDG 51 because of some issue with DDG 51.
so that is consistent with there being a difference between 51 and later flight 1.   I don't have an article to cite, so I am talking. 71.212.153.254 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While Burke (51) did have a long shakedown, we have plenty of sources that show that Burke was launched and commissioned well before Barry. It's possible that Barry was deployed first, but the few sources I checked show 1993 as the year of deployment for both, without mentioning exact dates. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry  DDG 52 first to be comissioned 

message: Regarding the infobox armament, ODIN and HELIOS aren't exactly guns. It would be more appropriate for them to be in their own heading named "Directed energy weapons:" or "Lasers:" or something like that. Starting a topic just bc this would be the first warship class article to have such a heading in its infobox armament. Findingmoney100 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ODIN and HELIOS 

message: There are oceans of inappropriate capitalization throughout the article, and some of the most prominent are in the infobox, ex. "Tomahawk Cruise Missile" instead of "Tomahawk cruise missile". I checked some other USN ship class articles and many of those have the same problem, yet while I'm energetic enough to make a long pass through this article, I can't do them all. I wouldn't use a chainsaw; my general principle is to observe how the target article for the named item capitalizes it, and respect that. Any objections if I clean this up here? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up all the ships, actually, since we use templates for these it wasn't too bad. I hope I got them all. Pennsy22 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I cleaned up a few more in the body text as well. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant capitalization 

message: In a similar light to the previous topic, there's several acronyms that are defined but are never used (e.g., "AAW", "NGFS", "ISR"). Any opposition to removing them? Findingmoney100 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition here. Someone who gets deeper into the topic will surely encounter those acronyms later, but it's not this article's job to jargonize everything; if a reader wants to know those details, they can read the target articles. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've caught all the unused acronyms Findingmoney100 (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused acronyms