Talk:HMS Cardiff (D108)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Big Changes

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The Port Howard signal pic has been moved to the Port Howard article, this is coz it screwed up the format on Internet Explorer.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)