Talk:HMS Crescent (1931)

Move to HMS Crescent?

Given that neither Crescent nor Fraser are more noteworthy than the other, it makes sense this article is moved to HMS Crescent (1932) (ie the name and date of ship build), with HMCS Fraser (H48) as a redirect, rather than the other way around. A few minor changes will also be required to the intro to indicate more fully the shared history. If there's no objection within a couple of weeks, I'll make the change. Shem (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pennant numbers were liable to change until about 1948, and for numerous warships they were changed several times during the ship's lifetime; so the concensus we developed was that launch dates (which being historic data would not be open to change) would be used as an identifier for all British and other European warships. I appreciate that USN hull numbers are fixed and serve an entirely different function from the pennant numbers used for RN warships, so I will not comment as regards what US contributors wish to do for USN warships. But I strongly urge them not to try and use pennant numbers as part of the title of articles on any pre-1948 British warship. As regards ships which were renamed (such as the Crescent) it makes sense to have the article titled under the name which the ship had when launched, with a redirect for names which were acquired later in the ship's life. So I entirely agree with you that the article should be entitled HMS Crescent (1931) (NOTE 1931, not 1932 - she was launched 29 September 1931!), with a redirect from the later Canadian identity of HMCS Fraser (1937) (17 February 1937 was when she was formally transferred to her new identity). I don't think the "H48" has any relevence at all, and I'm sure someone trying to find the ship would not use that as an identifier. For most destroyers, the pennant letter was changed in 1940 (although this did not happen for "H" pennants). Rif Winfield (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa - I moved it to (1932) vice (1931) in the first place. I can't imagine what I was thinking (perhaps it was a simple typo?) I suggest we wait until we're happy with the disambiguation by date discussion before moving it once-and-for-all. Shem (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

HMS Crescent (1932) → HMS Crescent (H48) — Pennant number is better disambiguator than year (per WP:NC-SHIPS). I can't move over redirect with history. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not uncontroversial. Pennant or hull numbers are recommended for modern ships "if they are well-known", not in general. There have been several discussions about this, and the consensus seems to be to use pennant numbers for Royal Navy post-WW-2 ships, launch dates for postpre-WW-1 ships, and no prevailing opinion for ships in between. Please go the proper way for possibly contested moves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Given that I believe there's nothing well-known about HMS Ark Royal (R07), and that it should be re-named HMS Ark Royal (1981) to disambiguate it properly from other Arks, my opinion that this article should remain at its current name is probably of little value. Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I oppose the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shem1805 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Pennant number are NOT good disambiguators - they were quite liable to change during a ship's life, whereas a ship's launch date is a once-and-for-all historic date. (Mind you, it is not helpful that the date quoted is wrong - the launch date was 1931, not 1932 [see my note above in the first item of this talk section] - but that's simply someone's input error).
  Stephan's record of the concenus agreed is roughly correct, with 1948 being the operative date for "post WW2 ships". I would also remind you that there were as many pre-1900 ships to consider for the RN as post 1900 ships; and the former never had pennant numbers. Pennant numbers changed frequently during WW1; and many changed once or twice during WW2 (notably the flag superior part of the pennant) and again at the end of that war. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Crescent (1931)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   couple of prose spots that need polish

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Just a couple of questions about the shipwreck

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "...France upon her arrival in early June." arrival where? It's implied that it's England but better to be clear.
    • Agreed.
• Design:
  • Should it be Parsons-geared? I'm honestly not sure though...
    • No, Parsons is the manufacturer, while geared is the type of turbine.
• Operational history:
  • Since you've changed headings here, suggest adding the year to "After the ship commissioned on 21 April..."
    • Done.
  • Link for Sheerness?
    • Done.
• Transfer:
  • Suggest heading of "Transfer to the Royal Canadian Navy" rather than the acroynym.
    • Done.
  • short explanation of ASDIC to avoid making folks click through to figure out what it is?
    • I added sonar in parentheses. Not sure if that's really enough, but I think that's a far more well-known term.
  • "The ship escorted the convoy bringing most of the 1st Canadian Infantry Division to part way to Britain in mid-December." Something is off here... did you mean "..Division part way to Britain" or "...Division to Britain"?
    • Fixed.
• Has the shipwreck been found? Or was she salvaged?
  • I can find nothing about any salvage, but she must have been as she sank in a shipping channel of the Gironde Estuary and presumably would have been blocking traffic.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Crescent (1931). 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/20111002012353/http://www.navy.gc.ca/project_pride/ships/ship_e.asp?shipNumber=2 to http://www.navy.gc.ca/project_pride/ships/ship_e.asp?shipNumber=2

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)