A fact from Grom-class destroyer (1939) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
This page seems neither fish nor fowl; it isn’t a ship article, as it refers to more than one ship, and it isn’t a ship class article by the title. I’m sure it offends against NC(Ships) somehow.
As neither ships was ever built (and, AFAIK Orkan wasn’t even laid down) are they notable enough to have an article at all? Or if they are notable, shouldn’t they have their own pages? If they were part of the Grom class (Conway gives them one sentence in its listing for Grom class) shouldn’t this be merged to there? Or if there is enough difference between these two and the other two Groms to be a separate class, shouldn’t it be entitled as such (“Later Grom class” for example)?
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
This info could easily be incorporated into the Grom class article, but there's enough info here justify a separate article under the name of Improved Grom class destroyer or something similar. But the name has to change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
We have plenty of articles on things that were just planned, or were never finished. I was considering asking at milhist or ship project about how to write articles on unfinished ships, but they are certainly notable and afait they are referred to in most literature by the names they were supposed to get. If this article fits into existing rules poorly, this just illustrates the need that the rules need to be adjusted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's nothing wrong with the rules, but I agree that the article meets the notability requirements. Plain as a pikestaff, this article sits well at Improved Grom class destroyer and should be moved forthwith. Shem (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, the current name contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and no formal discussion is necessary. The current names do nothing to differentiate between other ships named Huragan and Orkan. I know of several other Polish ships with the latter name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The reason I ask for RM is because the suggested Improved Grom class destroyer is OR, I have yet to see any discussion of such a class. Instead, the two unbuilt destroyers are mentioned prominently, and while I considered writing an article on each of them, they are really notable as a group of two individual ships. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's either an independent ship class article with the title given above, or it will be merged into the main Grom class article. One or the other. The two ships are sister ships and are part of a class, either their own class or their predecessor. No ifs, ands, or buts. Neither ship is notable enough for an article of their own since neither was even launched. And I really don't know how a group of two individual ships is different than a class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Piotr: I’m assuming that you aren’t just trailing a coat here, in order to take a swipe at the NC(Ship) guidelines, but that you actually do find these two sufficiently different to their sisters to warrant a separate article. (And I wouldn’t disagree; that they were to be the first indigenous builds is worth recording, even if they didn’t make it off the slipway).
But if you are unhappy with the suggested titles, then you’ll need to come up with one that fits with NC guidelines. Ships that are not individual builds are part of a class; that’s the way naming works in the real world of ships, not just on WP. And we have articles about ship classes that use the same name; they just have a disambiguator added, and it isn’t OR to add one. If it comes to it, the title you have chosen is also OR; the sources cited all (doubtless) refer to these two merely as part of the Grom class.
If you are wanting to avoid a merge, I reckon you need to put your thinking cap on. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
PS I'm not so sure about "Improved...", though; they were basically the same design, but to be built in Poland, with Polish- or Polish-sourced materials. But any such title is more acceptable than the present one. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, the designs were to be improved. Looking at how articles about some other unfinished ships look like (redirecting to class articles), I see your point. I'd still like to see a reference for the proposed new article name, though, although the proposed "improved" name does sound better, a day into the discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
(outdent)
Well the reference, such as it is, would be here; but if you are still unhappy that these titles aren’t used in sources, then we ought to go with something like "Grom class destroyer (1939)", per dab guidelines.
It has been established the original title is unacceptable, and we shouldn’t stay with a bad title because we can’t decide which of the better ones is best.
If you have details of any improvements in these two which would justify the title "Improved Grom class", then bring it along; there may well be a better title than the one I’ve used. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
The details are all there in the text: "The two new destroyers were planned with several changes in the design. The superstructure and funnels were to be be grouped together, and crew quarters layout was changed. Welding was to be used more prominently in the construction. Engine power was to be increased by 2,500 horsepower; the displacement would be increased by 70 tons." I intend to move this article to Improved Grom class destroyer soon - please let me know if you're not happy. The real reason for this is that the current title is misleading in places like Category:Grom class destroyers. The template (Template:Improved Grom class destroyers) says it all! Shem (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. As a principal author I'll note that the unreferenced content is a translation of information at pl wiki. The article is short enough that I don't want to remove it, but till it is referenced, it cannot progress in quality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
