Talk:HMS Cardiff (D108)

Frequently asked questions

Q: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?

A: In all probability what you added was unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly because of the article's Featured Status. Featured Articles on Wikipedia require sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to a Featured Article without a source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.

Q: Why is there no mention of Cardiff's activity between the Falklands and Gulf wars?

A: So far editors have been unable to provide reliable sources (see above) on this period in time, users are of course still encouraged to continue attempts at this. However it has been agreed, by consensus, during the assessment process, per the Featured Article criteria, that the article is comprehensive and neglects no major facts or details.

Q: The entire article makes reference to the ship as "she", shouldn't the destoyer be referenced as "it"?

A: This is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and the consensus of the editors for the Military history WikiProject and its contributors is that ship articles on Wikipedia may use an all "she/her" format or an all "it" format, but the article may not alternate between the two forms of reference. The majority of sources for this article is the refer to all ships as "she" or "her", and as a result is it easier for some editors to simply carry that format through the rest of the article.

Q: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{fact}} tag on it right now.

A: This article (like many others) uses the approach that there are no citations in the lead section, because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation.

HMS Cardiff (D108) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 20, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 25, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
April 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
April 19, 2008	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
May 4, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 17, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Military history: Maritime / British / European / South America

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	South American military history task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Ships

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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

South America: Falklands Low‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

The 12 pictures!

Mate, great pics, but the article will look more neat if you add all those pics to Commons, remove them and then stick a little "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:" tag at the bottom. Let me know if you need a hand doing this Ryan4314 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the pointer. As we have discussed, I hope changes will be under way in the not too distant future.Griffiths911 (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The missile is a telemetry and the picture was probably taken on the 1983 Falklands deployment. I was the person who fitted the telemetry antenna on top of the 4.5 turret at sea. Please leave it on as it is a valid Cardiff picture, but not from 1982, there are shot mats down, and these were not used in action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.47.162 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Can you clariy or reword "double her original price?" Is it "double the quoted price?" Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :D Ryan4314 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorations re: ship of the month, freedom of the city

Hi guys, it's pretty obvious from the review that the battlehonours should be moved into the infobox, but where should I put the "ship of the month" and "freedom of Cardiff city"? Also a minor fact; the RN's first female chaplain served onboard Cardiff [1], worth a mention???

~~I think all three honors could go into the infobox, separated by commas. If not, then you could expand each honor into a well-developed paragraph of 3-5 sentences and keep the section.~~

~~Absolutely mention the RN's first female chaplain. That kind of highlight, like the surrender in the Falklands war, are good candidates for the lead paragraph.~~ Cheers. Haus^Talk 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :D Ryan4314 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the references

~~Hi guys, ref #6 has gone dead (sort of) and I can't use the wayback machine to retrieve it.~~

Also, amazingly, ref #8 has a load of information about what Cardiff did in her first year after commissioning, that I completely missed! So do we all think I should get to work on a "Pre Falklands War" section? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Changes

Hi guys, wanted to explain the big changes I made, please can we discuss it here before any reverts.

Well first off you can see I added all that Pre Falklands info I found to the "Construction" section. I did this on advice from Tom, in resemblence to the USS Wisconsin Reactivation section. I think we can all agree that we thought a "Pre-War" section would've been a bad idea (or at least I don't remember there being any support for it), so this seems the neatest way to put it in. You'll also notice the "flow" is terrible in this section, never fear, on advice from SoLando, I'm going to ask the nice people at WikiProject League of Copyeditors to see if they'll kindly make the whole article flow. I was just using what little free time I have at the moment to move all this new data into the article.
Secondly you'll see I merged the pathetically limp "post Falklands" section into the "War" section. I never really thought that the section should exist, I was just trying to create a "timeline effect" (lol like the USS Wisconsin article), so I stretched out some Falklands info to try and create the section, evidentally it's now obvious we wont need to get the article to FA grade.
The Port Howard signal pic has been moved to the Port Howard article, this is coz it screwed up the format on Internet Explorer.
I swapped the marines pic for a "better" one, by that I mean a photogenic one, the last one was a bit confusing with the 2 boats in line with each other.
I removed the '94 pic, Dual Freq added it, now no offence to him but I feel that ship articles only need 1 generic ship pic (i.e. ), because once you've seen the ship, there's really not much more to it. Hence I'd like all the other photos to be of something unique about the ship. This also explains my logic for the change of the decommissioned pic. Now personally, if we all feel another pic needs to be added, I think it should be this one , as it really conveys the fact that Cardiff was part of OP Enduring Freedom (even more so than the marine one, which I chose over this one due to that "uniqueness" value I just spoke of). Please guys, really keen to hear your thoughts on this particular matter.
Please read; Also I had to move the pic from the "decommissioned" section up a bit, User:Victor12 moved it down in the first place, but left where it was, it was affecting the "Notes" section, creating a long white space and also lengthening the section.

Really keen for any feedback guys and of course feel free to start copyediting ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, a few bits of jargon needed clarifying/interwiking but otherwise it was well written.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass, very well referenced

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass, good use of images

The lead, though is good enough for GA, could use a little work. It covers everything but I think it could use a little expansion. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Hi guys, I'm trying to form a consensus on two things here:

1. The bit where it talks about the 4 SAS guys (here's the line for your memory);

"Cardiff was also tasked with the collection of four Special Air Service (SAS) troopers, who had parachuted from a C-130 Hercules passing over the destroyer."

Do you think instead of the word "collection" we should have "recovery"?

2. Also on the last pic it says;

"Cardiff 's starboard quarter (rear) in 2007, her name is rusted"

How should we describe the location of the name on the ship? Should we use a nautical term like "starboard quarter (stern)" or a term like rear (right side)?Ryan4314 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, "recovery" sounds better than "collection" and "starboard quarter" sounds way better than "rear". --Victor12 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Victor. Woody (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3-1 sells it (Ken voiced similar opinions in an E-mail to me), I'll change it tomorrow night. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, can I just say though (I didn't before as I was trying to appear neutral) that I think "recovery" makes it sound as if the SAS fell out of the plane. This was a planned thing after all, "recovery" implies a reaction to an accident, whereas something like "collection point" sounds much more er "planned" (dammit, hate using the same word twice). Ryan4314 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what you are saying Ryan. I am ex Navy and think along military lines; for example, in navy speak the opposite to launching a helicopter is to recover a helicopter.......no emergency required! Does this look any better?

On 25 May, Cardiff was tasked with recovering four Special Air Service (SAS) troopers, who had parachuted into the ocean from a C-130 Hercules passing close by to the destroyer.Griffiths911 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tweaked a bit already and it looks fine to me now ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should HMS Cardiff be in Portal:Cumbria?

Should HMS Cardiff (D108) be included in the Cumbria portal?

Background to this discussion may be found here. For ease of the reader, here is the relevant Cumbria text in present in the Cardiff article:

"Her keel was laid down on 6 November 1972, at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd in Cumbria. The build was interrupted by a labour shortage at Vickers. To solve this problem, she was towed to Swan Hunter in Tyne and Wear and completed there."

Ryan4314 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see the need for this RfC, especially not here, but anyone interested in the issue may also like to comment at this page. J Milburn (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A point raised in the previous discussion was does inclusion bring anything to the article. At the time the conclusion was no, and I don't see that having changed now. I'd be inclined not to include it, the link is pretty tenuous, ships have little to do with their build location after launching and fitting out.

ALR (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox photo

Would there be any contention to changing the infobox pic from File:HMS Cardiff (D108) 1.jpg to File:HMS Cardiff (D108) - 021216-N-LL432-004.jpg? It is a few years older, but in my opinion is a better image: certainly higher resolution and of better quality and composition. I don't want to unilaterally change the infobox pic on a featured article. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a matter of personal preference. I would prefer the current photo as it shows more detail of the ship. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the USN photo is a higher quality, although I am disappointed that it lacks a type 42's distinctive Sea Dart missiles and the rust covered bow doesn't exactly cast the ship in the best light, alas these are aesthetic concerns though. I seem to remember when I was selecting photographs for the infobox, I wanted something that showed Cardiff in profile. I'm on the fence with this one, like 51% current photo 49% USN photo ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argentine Boeing 707 crew.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Argentine Boeing 707 crew.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Argentine Boeing 707 crew.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HMS Cardiff (D108). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051231011050/http://www.navynews.co.uk:80/falklands/stories/8202051001.asp to http://www.navynews.co.uk/falklands/stories/8202051001.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on HMS Cardiff (D108). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on HMS Cardiff (D108). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HMS Cardiff (D108). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090828082734/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk:80/server/show/conWebDoc.3706/changeNav/3533 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3706/changeNav/3533

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word 'posting' within the Falklands war section.

Does anyone object to me changing the following within the Falklands war section of this article: 'Cardiff had relieved her sister ship and class lead Sheffield of this posting' to something more appropriate (incorporating words like deployment or station)? Royal Navy language does NOT include the word 'posting', this is an army/RAF term used in conjunction with the transfer of personnel. Incidentally, the Royal Navy uses the term 'Draft' of 'Drafted' when transferring personnel between units. Ships are deployed or take up a patrol or station...never posted. Your thoughts? Ken Griffiths 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffiths911~commonswiki (talk • contribs)

Ken, I see no problem with rewording this. I'd suggest changing out any niche terminology you see to something understandable by laypersons, so long as there's no changing of meaning. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Let me think about your niche terminology comment a while.Ken Griffiths 15:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffiths911~commonswiki (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on HMS Cardiff (D108). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Cardiff (D108). 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/20060225022808/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=123622&speeches=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]