Talk:County-class cruiser

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the County-class cruiser article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

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

Military history: Maritime / South Pacific / British / European / World War II C‑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

C

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Australia: Military history / Maritime C‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal County-class cruiser is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Exeter and York[edit]

Exeter and York were not members of the County class. When I have time in the next few weeks does anyone object to me splitting this article into the County class and the York class? Is there a reason they are combined here? Emoscopes ^Talk 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no objects in a month, I'll go ahead then... Emoscopes ^Talk 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox?[edit]

I'm not really sure what the infobox achieves, apart from disinformation. The Counties aren't really a homogeneous single class, rather they are three distinct classes. This is what I have tried to achieve in the recent extensive re-working of the article, with extensive specifications included in the text spelling out the numerous and major differences between the 3 groups. The infobox, as it is, is incorrect for the following;

displacement
length
speed
protection
Complement
armament
aircraft

There is no one "at a glance" answer to any of these fields for the County class, and I would strongly suggest that the infobox serves no real purpose, and there are no grounds for keeping it there, apart from the "but other articles have one", which is spurious at best. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I enjoy the consistent style and format across the various class pages, so I would prefer to keep the infobox. However I certainly would not be opposed to removing the parts of the infobox that are not consistent across the three sub-classes. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started tro trim the box down to a more approximate form. GraemeLeggett 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark XVI mounting?[edit]

"The single 4-inch guns would later be replaced by paired mountings. In a fruitless attempt to keep within treaty limits, the Mark XVI mounting was stripped down to reduce the weight, the result being the Mark XVII, an exercise described as "ridiculous punctiliousness"[5]. They were later converted back to standard Mark XVI mounts." This is confusing and possibly ambiguous. Some of the ships had the 4 inch MK V guns replaced by Mk XVI, which were usually mounted in twin turrets. Is this what it is referring to? If so it should be explicit. Mks of gun and mounting are separate things.Rcbutcher (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMAS Australia, mis-identified in photos[edit]

I've come across some USN photos that claim to be of HMAS Australia (D84) durinng a visit to New York in 1932-33. However, during those years, that cruiser did not leave the south-west Pacific. I think the ship is likely another County class vessel. More detail is at Talk:HMAS_Australia_(D84)#Misidentified_photos.3F, and any help in figuring this out would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 22:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled Design and Development section[edit]

Not sure how to fix it, but this section appears to have been vandalized.

75.50.156.57 (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Phil[reply]