Talk:Bay-class landing ship: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:30, 11 July 2012

Ships C‑class

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Name

The navy and RFA call them Bay class landing ships. Other news sources generally use this term as well, or occasionally 'Bay class amphibious landing ships'. Reuters goes a little further with 'Bay Class heavy amphibious lift vessel'. While Landing Platform Dock ships is seen sometimes, that source even refers to the Bays specifically as 'Bay Class amphibious support ships'. Given the more common name, any objection to this being 'Bay class landing ship' instead? Benea (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I went by the article's description and the pattern of other Wikipedia articles on LSx types ("foo landing ship"); if the WP:COMMONNAME is Bay class landing ship then I have no problem with a move to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only catch I can see is that just plain "landing ship" seems to usually refer to ships that beach and use bow doors - Polnocny class landing ship for instance. But that might not be too much of an issue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Scratch that - Ivan Rogov class landing ship is precedent. Full support then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, the two Russian examples demonstrate that there is not much standardisation in these types of vessels any more. If we want to avoid OR by looking at a ship's capabilities and then seeing for ourselves what type we think it best matches, we are probably better off by going with the common/official descriptor. Benea (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True...so, go ahead and move this one to Bay class landing ship then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A redirect with history will need to be deleted, but yes, absolutely. Benea (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. (The history, funnily, was just the bot fixing the redirect after the earlier move.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

There's a really nice photo of Largs here - but I'm not sure whether it's available under the OGL, they seem to be tightening up on that for defence images at least. Being from up and behind, it really gives a sense of the purpose of the Bays. The next best one I've found that is definitely OGL is of Lyme Bay - search http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/ for 45150928.jpg if someone wants to do the honours? 86.25.7.71 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *****A redirect with history will need to be deleted, but yes, absolutely. [[User:Benea|Benea]] ([[User talk:Benea|talk]]) 11:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 ******Done. (The history, funnily, was just the bot fixing the redirect after the earlier move.) - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 11:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
+== Photos ==
+There's a really nice photo of Largs [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100406104724/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royal-fleet-auxilliary/flotilla-ships/rfa-largs-bay/rfa-largs-bay# here] - but I'm not sure whether it's available under the [[OGL]], they seem to be tightening up on that for defence images at least. Being from up and behind, it really gives a sense of the purpose of the Bays. The next best one I've found that is definitely OGL is of Lyme Bay - search http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/ for 45150928.jpg if someone wants to do the honours? [[Special:Contributions/86.25.7.71|86.25.7.71]] ([[User talk:86.25.7.71|talk]]) 16:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)