Talk:County class cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the County class cruiser article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ships (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force WikiProject Australia / Maritime History / Military      (Rated B-Class) Portal County class cruiser is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Exeter and York

Exeter and York were not members of the County class. When I have time in the next few weeks does anyone object to me splitting this article into the County class and the York class? Is there a reason they are combined here? Emoscopes ^Talk 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

no objects in a month, I'll go ahead then... Emoscopes ^Talk 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox?

I'm not really sure what the infobox achieves, apart from disinformation. The Counties aren't really a homogeneous single class, rather they are three distinct classes. This is what I have tried to achieve in the recent extensive re-working of the article, with extensive specifications included in the text spelling out the numerous and major differences between the 3 groups. The infobox, as it is, is incorrect for the following;

• displacement
• length
• speed
• protection
• Complement
• armament
• aircraft

There is no one "at a glance" answer to any of these fields for the County class, and I would strongly suggest that the infobox serves no real purpose, and there are no grounds for keeping it there, apart from the "but other articles have one", which is spurious at best. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I enjoy the consistent style and format across the various class pages, so I would prefer to keep the infobox. However I certainly would not be opposed to removing the parts of the infobox that are not consistent across the three sub-classes. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started tro trim the box down to a more approximate form. GraemeLeggett 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark XVI mounting ?

"The single 4-inch guns would later be replaced by paired mountings. In a fruitless attempt to keep within treaty limits, the Mark XVI mounting was stripped down to reduce the weight, the result being the Mark XVII, an exercise described as "ridiculous punctiliousness"[5]. They were later converted back to standard Mark XVI mounts." This is confusing and possibly ambiguous. Some of the ships had the 4 inch MK V guns replaced by Mk XVI, which were usually mounted in twin turrets. Is this what it is referring to ? If so it should be explicit. Mks of gun and mounting are separate things.Rcbutcher (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)