Talk:List of frigates of India

Suggestions

G'day, I have the following suggestions for improving this list towards B-list class:

• the lead should be no more than four paragraphs
• there should be no information in the lead that isn't elsewhere in the article
• the introductory sentences for each section of the list should be expanded to a decent paragraph to adequately introduce the subsections, elucidating common themes etc. (e.g. when was the first frigate introduced, how many lost to enemy action, home grown or purchased from overseas, etc.)
• the prose will need a copy edit

Anyway, I hope this helps. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for your suggestions. I have improved it keeping them in mind. Please review it. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of frigates of India. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wewerethere.mod.uk/wewerethere_old/inmed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220083234/http://www.shipyard-yantar.ru/en_news_view.php?id=69&PHPSESSID=69edf209249994321a5ec7a0ffac4a69 to http://www.shipyard-yantar.ru/en_news_view.php?id=69&PHPSESSID=69edf209249994321a5ec7a0ffac4a69
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Postwar/Frigates/leander.htm

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 15:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

SPS

@Dhtwiki: you said "lets discuss this" but you never opened a discussion, I'm interested in what you have to say about these non-expert SPS being RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming that "SPS" means "self-published sources". Do you need to be so cryptic? I'm letting you start the discussion, since you decided to remove so many citation, merely declaring the sources as non-reliable. Is that site formally deprecated as such? I'm also looking for a less drastic approach, such as placing templates suggesting that more reliable sources are needed. I'd like to have feedback from others watching this page before letting so many citations be swept away (most, if not all, of them well templated, which suggests a certain degree of thoughtfulness that, I think, should be respected). Dhtwiki (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be cryptic, I thought everyone was aware of WP:SPS. Deprecation is a step beyond simple unreliability. The burden is on the person who wants to add sources to justify their concerns and get consensus, not on the person who removes them. Removing the SPS but not the information sourced to them is the less dramatic approach, the other option is to delete the text that was sourced to them as well. It does no good to be mad at the person who removes obviously unreliable sources, instead you should be mad at whoever added them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

From a review of the history it is @KCVelaga:'s inability to evaluate a source's reliability which you should be mad at. Don't get mad at the competent editor cleaning up the mess, get mad at the incompetent editor who made it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)