Talk:Kingston-class coastal defence vessel

General Comments

Moved from the main article: (Geoff NoNick 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

It might be useful to note that the official written description of any Canadian Forces (CF) Base, Unit, Lodger Unit, ship, aircraft etc. should always be in upper case versus a combination of upper and lower case letters. For example, whenever a ship's name appears in print it would ideally appear as HMCS HALIFAX versus HMCS Halifax or Hmcs HALIFAX. Another example is CFB SHEARWATER vs. CFB Shearwater

This is actually just Canadian Forces style and only applies to official documents of the CF, it doesn't apply to things written about CF units. For example, the ship "Halifax" would be written "HMCS HALIFAX" in a letter produced by the CF, but would be "HMCS Halifax" in correspondence originated by the Royal Navy. I'm not certain if there is an official Wikipedia style for military units, but I suspect that they should be treated simply as any other proper noun (i.e. Initial Capitalized). Geoff NoNick 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kingston class

Hi there. I'm the guy that's been reverting your modifications to the Kingston class patrol vessel article. Here's what I removed:

"The main armament is a 40mm L/60 Bofors. This gun is a museum piece dating back to 1944. Even as training weapons, the Bofors is of dubious value – they were just on hand and at a lowered cost."

The first sentence isn't needed because it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (including at the beginning of the paragraph you're adding it to); as well, the gun is called a "Bofors 40mm 60 Mk 5NC", not "40mm L/60 Bofors". This is what the old version of the gun was called prior to its modification to Naval Configuration (the "NC"); if you want to be technical, this gun design dates from 1933, not 1944.

The second sentence isn't suitable because, while some unmodified Bofors Mk1s are in museums, the ones on the Kingston class were in active use (at the Canadian base in Lahr, Germany) up until they were fitted on the ships, when they received a major overhaul of the aiming system to make it hydraulic. So only the barrel (which is as accurate and "valuable" as any .50 cal weapon) is original.

The third sentence is unsubstantiated opinion; clearly someone considers them to be of training value, and your opinion doesn't trump theirs.

I agree with your sentiment - the Bofors aren't serious weapons for the platform - but you really should refer to scholarly/reliable sources rather than reiterating "what everyone knows".

I am confused about why you keep removing the sentence, "A replacement for this gun (the OTO Melara 12.7 mm RCHMG) is being trialed." The OTO Melara 12.7 RCHMG was trialed on HMCS SUMMERSIDE in October 06 and this is a matter of the public record. More info is available at http://www.tridentnews.ca/PDFArchives/Nov27_2006.pdf and I will add this link as a reference to the article. I will grant that the gun actually dates (in Canadian use) from 1944.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Geoff NoNick 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/consoles/l-3-mapps2/pressl-3-mapps-contract.html

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are the 12 active or not?

In part of the article, it is stated that out of the twelve ships, some have been "removed from service in an effort to cut costs" but yet later in the article all 12 are listed as being "in active service". Which is it? --168.215.131.150 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Some have been removed from active service. The problem with Canadian navy articles is that they are not up to date in all places. I have been trying to update them as I go, but it's one man pushing a rock uphill sometimes. The biggest problem with the Canadian navy is the almost total lack of coverage on anything post-WWII. Even operational books for WWII are hard to find, but at least they are sometimes found at libraries. Nothing past 1945 though. Sorry for the ranting. I will change it. Foxxraven (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)