Talk:Flower-class corvette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Revised Flower Class ?[edit]

The article currently states that

"Properly speaking there are two Flower classes: 52 ships built after 1942 were larger and better armed; this subclass is sometimes called the "revised Flower class"..."

I strongly suspect that the article is currently conflating the Castle class corvette with Flower class corvettes that have been refitted with the the longer forecastle. Most Canadian flowers were eventually equipped with the longer forecastle -- that would be more than the 52 odd the article currently claims. I think all the references to this "revised flower class" need to be corrected.

In 1939 Flowers had a their four inch on the forecastle, a pom-pom AA gun on the bandstand aft, and their depth charges, as their complete armament. As the war went on further AA was added, haphazardly, to the Canadian Flowers, during their refits. Some Canadian Flowers ended up mounting as many as an additional four 20mm AA cannons. So, the better armament the article attributes to the 52 "revised flower class" would really only be the replacement of traditional depth charges by the squid.

-- Geo Swan 19:11, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

No, the article is correct about the existence of the revised Flower class. (Compare for example the specifications of the original Flowers [1] with the revised Flowers [2]). Yes, many of the earlier Flowers were refitted with long forecastles, improved AA, Hedgehog, etc so that the difference was not in the end very significant. That's why the article includes the revised Flowers along with the original.
However, the number 52 and the date 1942 seem to be wrong (perhaps from confusion with the Castle class as you suggest). [3] lists 64 ships of the revised class, plus 5 that were cancelled, the first being launched in 1940. I'll fix the article. Gdr 14:08, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This may be an old discussion now but if it’s any help, Conway has some information on this.
Flower class ships had various modifications throughout the building programme; longer foc’s’le, improved bridge, better splinter protection, better crew facilities etc. between 1940 and 1942. In 1942 these improvements were consolidated into a revised design, and these ships were Modified/Revised Flowers.
However problems at sea associated with their relatively short length led to a new design, basically the same as the modified design but over 20% longer; this was the Castle class.
Conway lists 132 RN and 80 RCN Flowers (built 1940-42), and 10 RN and 42 RCN Modified Flowers (built 1942-44).
There were 39 RN Castles, and another 5 completed as rescue ships (all built 1943-44); the RCN Castles (37 orders ) were all cancelled.
I’ll try to incorporate this into the article.Swanny18 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially the vessels ordered under the 1941 and 1942 Programmes were formally designated the Modified Flower class. Obviously, with such a numerous group of vessels, there were incrimental changes to the design for vessels ordered in 1939 and 1940, but with the 1941 ships there was an extensive change to the basic hull form of the design, so that a point came where the Admiralty decided that it was sensible to introduce a separate designation. No less than 57 ships of the Modified class were projected to be built for the RN in the UK shipyards alone, but production shifted to the bigger Castle Class so that relatively few units of the Modified class were built for the RN. This is discussed in a number of published books, including David Brown's The Design and Construction of British Warships 1939-1945 and Peter Elliott's Allied Escort Ships of World War II (although the latter does appear to contain a number of small statistical errors). At any rate, the official division of the group into the original Flower class and the separate Modified Flower class needs to be followed to avoid confusion. The List of Flower class corvettes also needs to be restructured to take this into account. Rif Winfield 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Postwar Flowers[edit]

The article states "110 went into commercial use as freighters, smugglers, tugs, weather ships, and whalers". I have a few photographs of whalers built from the corvettes but can't seem to find anything about any freighters or smugglers. Does anyone have any links or photographs? I can easily believe that some were converted to coastal freighters, but "smugglers" seems a little far-fetched. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

List of RCN Flower Class Corvettes[edit]

It would be a long list, but with a number of these ships having their own articles, would making a list of them be justified? Andrew647 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a blind fool who doesn't read closely enough. Andrew647 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Separation of different sub-classes of Flower Class corvettes[edit]

Unlike the separate article [List of Flower Class Corvettes], the table in the current article fails to distinguish between the various sub-classes within the "family" of Flower Class. Placing all these vessels into an alphabetical sequence rather than a chronological sequence fails to show the way in which the programmes developed over the War period, and which individual vessels were built under which programme. It would, I suggest, be more helpful to re-sequence these in a chronological order (by date of placing building order with shipyards). In addition, there are a number of errors in the table in this article, e.g. Renfrew is mis-spelled as Renefrew. I have corrected one of two of these minor errors, but there are still a number of gaps in the table of dates which can be filled from the [List of Flower Class Corvettes] article. Also, some of the postwar transfers, especially to Latin American naval forces, need to be listed. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Flower" class vs Gladiolus class[edit]

Seeing how the class isn't actually called "Flower", shouldn't the title be Gladiolus class corvettes? (Don't tell me "Flower" is more common; that's what redirects are for.) As is, it perpetuates a mistake & leads the uninformed to believe "Flower" is the name. (Before rewriting, it was even worse). Trekphiler (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And your references for this claim are?
Note a google search on "Gladiolus Class" and HMS nets zero hits.
a google search on "Gladiolus Class" and "Royal Navy" nets zero hits.
I owned a coffee table book -- "Canada's Flowers", on Canada's flower class corvettes. It had a page devoted to each corvette in the RCN. But first it had a chapter detailing the history of the class. I read this entire book, so I don't think I am "uninformed", thank you very much. I don't believe I had ever heard of the "Gladiolus Class" -- until your undiscussed and unilateral renaming. If you really think you can make a case that the article should be renamed, by all means go ahead. Make your case. Why not start with some authoritative sources? Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
" coffee table book " Not what I'd call "authoritative". (BTW, I think I've read it, too.) So how about Antony Preston? He's the naval editor for my source, Fitzsimons' Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare, Volume 11, pp.1137-42. Or do you think Preston knows less about naval matters than you do? (Google I don't count too reliable.) Moreover, I've seen Gladiolus used often (& that was before I was reading for citation, so don't bother to ask what sources, unless you want a list of every book on naval matters I've read in the last 25 yr); "Flower" is always in quotes, or unitalicised, just like "Hunt" or "Tribal". They aren't class names, they're common names, & the fact you don't know this doesn't make it untrue. Or, you could look here or here or here, which says "HMS Gladiolus (K34) was the lead ship". QED (tho even her page [!] gets it wrong). Trekphiler (talk) 05:18 & 05:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the first uncensored postwar (1946/47) version of Jane's Fighting Ships<ref>(reproduction with introduction by Antony Preston), ''Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II'', New Jersey: Random House, 1996, ISBN 0-517-67963-9, page 68.</ref> identifies these corvettes as the "Flower" Class. Thewellman (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (for clarity's sake, rather than a sep "notes" section; apologies Trekphiler (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
Notice the formatting. Trekphiler (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
being the first ship doesn't always do the job, HMS Kent (54) gave her name to the sub class of the County class cruisers even though she launched after Cornwall and commissioned after Cumberland. i think in the case of the Flowers, the name has to all intents and purposes become the class name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Trekphiler, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/95/a8923395.shtml was a very interesting link. Thanks. But I don't see how it supports renaming. I don't see how the other two links support renaming either.
WRT "Canada's Flowers" -- the first ten, fifteen pages of the book was a long, detailed account of the developlent of the Flower Class, including a diagram of the Southern Pride. And, as I said, this was followed by a page devoted to each vessel -- 100 plus pages. Most of each page was devoted to some beautiful historical photos. But, IIRC, the pages had a couple of paragraphs devoted the highlights of each vessels war time career. The book had an appendix listing the launch date, dates of appointments of their commanders, and decommissioning dates of all the vessels. And it had an appendix directed at model-ship builders, explaining how to build a model from scratch. It explained the minor design differences between the Canadian Flowers and the RN Flowers.
I called it a coffee table book because it was over-size, and contained hundreds of beautiful photos -- much better photos than we have on commons.
I think having read this book makes me reasonably well informed. You read a 1100 page book, and other nautical books too? Great. You are also reasonably well-informed. But this was a big more. You really should have discussed your rename first. And I am mystified as to why you didn't offer your references, such as they were, in your first note here on the talk page. We don't make edits based on our personal knowledge, we make it based on what we can WP:verify from WP:reliable sources. Now, that there are no online references to cite to verify your arguments for renaming is not the final word. If there were lots of good paper references to back up your argument I'd agree with a renaming.
Finally, if you do a rename, you do realize you are supposed to follow through and address the double-redirects? You didn't address them. Do you realize you didn't do this? Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it was a butchered job. How they support renaming? Notice none of them is listed as being named Flower, which would seem to be required to retain the name. Kent didn't "gave her name to the sub class". There is no "subclass", it's a common (generic) name (same as "Hunt"s & "Tribals", which are often used as if they are), not a class name, which is why "Flower" should be changed. We shouldn't be in the business of perpetuating, or creating, ignorance. Ship classes, FYI, are given (in traditional British/US service) to the first ship of the class; how Kent ended up not being name ship, I can't answer. (I don't know enough about her history. Lest anybody raise Permit, recall Thresher was a casualty; the two are used interchangeably by some.) How you can look at Gladiolus, which expressly states she's first, & say the class should be called "Flower", without a single ship in the class of that name, is beyond me. Also, the one on the Gladioluses I saw was cowritten by no less than Antony Preston...the editorial guy I cite as my authority for the change... Trekphiler (talk) 00:07 & 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Both Jane's Fighting Ships and the United States Navy Warship Identification Manual (NAVPERS 10796) identify these corvettes as the "Flower" class. While I acknowledge the validity of the of the Gladiolus class, I suggest "Flower" class remains a more appropriate title for this article -- which encompasses both the Gladiolus class and the modified "Flower" class (Samphire class?) I rather suspect advanced students of the corvette might be able to identify additional Canadian subclasses. I suggest this encompassing article contains information relevant to several subclasses, and a more appropriate course might be to add a paragraph of explanation within this article with a possible link to another article pertaining only to the Gladiolus class and omitting material about the modified "Flower" class(es). The present course may set an uncomfortable precedent for something like Hunt class destroyers. If (for example) the present Hunt class article were renamed the Atherstone class destroyer, with redirection of Hunt class destroyer, readers might have difficulty locating information about the Blankney, Albrighton, and Breccon class destroyer types included within the Hunt class. Thewellman (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the second time you pointed at HMS Gladiolus (K34) as independent justification for calling the class the Gladiolus Class. Yet the recent edit shows this is not idependent confirmation. You made the edit yourself. You made the edit yourself. Please don't try to claim this as independent justification. You said the other two didn't call the corvettes "Flower Class corvettes"? Lol. Try reading them again. Your first link, the Smith Docks one, did not call them Flower Class. But it doesn't call them Gladiolus Class either. Your second link absolutely does not refer to a "Gladiolus Class". Rather it says:

"Gladiolus was the first of what was to become a famous class of ship - the Flower Class Corvettes."

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m sure I’ve seen this discussion/argument/ row before somewhere, but for my four pennies worth:-

"Seeing how the class isn't actually called "Flower"..." Well, that sort of begs the question, doesn't it? The distinction you’ve drawn between the class name and the common name may not be real; there are numerous other groups of RN ships that don’t have a ship name ( Hunts and Tribals you’ve mentioned; Town, County and Crown Colony class cruisers; A to Z class destroyers, Town, River and Loch class sloops, HMS Hood, an Admiral class battlecruiser). It isn't a hard-and-fast rule at all. oI accept that Flower class may be an inappropriate name for a ship called Ville de Quebec, or Smith's Falls, or Asbestos, and I know the USN Flowers were called the “Action”class, but “Flowers” is what they seem to be. The onus is on you to provide a source that states that Gladiolus , not Flower was the class name; even one that uses the term would be a start. I don’t think being disparaging to a coffee table book (whatever that is) then giving as an alternative ‘some book I’ve read sometime in the last 25 years’ quite cuts it/ does the trick Preston is fair enough, but did he refer to a ‘Gladiolus class’, or say ‘Gladiolus was the lead ship of her class’? It isn’t the same thing at all.

"I've seen Gladiolus class used often..." Well either there’s a huge disparity between books written here in Britain, and over there, or between us we actually haven’t read that many, but I have never (ever) seen these ships referred to as Gladiolus class. On the other hand Flower class is used by Roskill, Morison (the official historians) Conway (fairly authoritative) Monserrat, or the Flower Class Corvette Association (who sailed in them)

"...always in quotes, or unitalicized...." Well, no: I haven't seen this writen in quotes (except here) though I have seen it unitalicized; but that only proves the class name isn't the name of the lead ship, and at that point we are going round in circles.

Second, WP is descriptive, not prescriptive; if the world and his dog searches under the name Flower class (that’s where Google is reliable) then that’s what the page should be titled; Though if your contention is demonstrable, there’s room in the article for an explanation of the fact. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

a)"the second time you pointed at HMS Gladiolus (K34) as independent justification for calling the class the Gladiolus Class. " And

"Gladiolus was the first of what was to become a famous class of ship"

Making that the third time you ignored what I actually said: she's lead ship of the class, & classes are routinely named for the lead ship, so your "Lol." is more than a little wrong. (And, yes, I changed it to fix the error also perpetuated here.) Why the Countys aren't, I can't answer.
b)"The onus is on you to provide a source that states that Gladiolus , not Flower was the class name; even one that uses the term would be a start." Would you pay attention? "my source, Fitzsimons' Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare, Volume 11, pp.1137-42. Or do you think Preston knows less about naval matters than you do?" What else do you want?
c)"Preston is fair enough, but did he refer to a ‘Gladiolus class’"? Would you pay attention? Or are you so invested in arguing me down you won't see?
d)"the Smith Docks one, did not call them Flower Class" This bolsters your argument? It's precisely because it does not call them Flower that it bolsters mine.
e)And you leave unanswered, I see, how the class is "Flower", without a single ship in the class of that name...
f)"are numerous other groups of RN ships that don’t have a ship name ( Hunts and Tribals you’ve mentioned; Town, County and Crown Colony class cruisers; A to Z class destroyers, Town, River and Loch class sloops" Notice, if you haven't already, every one of those is the generic name, not the class name. Atherstone, Afridi, Kent?, Southampton, Acasta & I'm tired of looking them up. None listed as "Flower," "Hunt", "Tribal", "Town", "County", or anything else. It is common not to use the class name. That does not mean it should be the practise in an encyclopedia, & if we have any pretence to it, we shouldn't, either.
g)"might have difficulty locating information" Fat chance. That's what "otheruses" headers are for. Or redirects.
h)"which encompasses both the Gladiolus class and the modified "Flower" class" Now you actually have a valid argument. It's the only one, & a good case for splitting them out, too. Which would you prefer?
i)And finally, I'm changing the lead back as a compromise until the issue of moving the page is settled. RN classes are named for the lead ship. Gladiolus was lead ship. QED. Trekphiler (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(I’ve numbered your points, to make it easier to reply; and I’ve put the last point in the section below, where it belongs. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Trekphiler
Your whole argument seems to be

The class is always named after the lead ship
Gladiolus was the lead ship
Therefore this is the Gladiolus class
Any example of a class not bearing the lead ships name
Is a common name not a class name
Because
The class is always named after the lead ship

At which point it just becomes dogmatic.

It may be in the USN but certainly isn’t in the RN ( You might want to look at this by the way) So far as I can see the class name is anything that easily describes the class.

Some examples:

The 1936 and 1937 destroyers were 16 identical ships, to carry names beginning J and K. The first off the stocks was HMS Jervis, so are they called Jervis class? Was Kelly in the Jervis class? Or did they use a more sensible description, something like,oh, I don’t know, the J and K classes?

The 50 Lend lease destroyers from the USN were all Wickes class, but named after towns in the UK. They were never called Wickes class, in Britain, or Montgomery class ( Wickes new name );they were Town class.

The Flowers transferred to the USN were renamed, ( presumably because the USN couldn’t cope with sailing a warship called Comfrey, or Candytuft), and became generically the Action class

The USN may always use the lead ship; In the RN it seems the other way round; the lead ship is only the class name when no other name suggests itself.

Only a Trekphiler would think otherwise. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To reply to your points:

.b&c)"The onus is on you… " and I was paying attention; were you?
You cite Fitzsimons as a source for the term Gladiolus class, but you still haven’t said if he uses that term, or merely says Gladiolus was the merely lead ship of the class. If it was the latter, it doesn’t prove anything; it only works if your contention about the class name always following the lead ship is correct, and I am saying you are wrong.

.a&d)"Smith dock …" not my point, but presumably it was a challenge to the webpages you originally offered for your contention

The first here doesn’t say Flower or Gladiolus class, so I don’t see how it substantiates anything.
The second here specifically says "Gladiolus was the first of what was to become a famous class of ship - the Flower Class Corvettes"; So again, I don’t see how it helps you.
The third,here, is the WP page you yourself edited, which is iffy, and the source on that page is the BBC one above, which doesn't help you.


.e)"How the class is Flower.."; because Flower is the generic name for them; so what? It’s only you that says the class name cannot be a generic name, and you are wrong.


.f)"Groups of RN ships..." Yes they are generic names; again, so what? I’m still waiting for a source that says that can’t be the class name.
In the meantime I’ll repeat; one source that specifically give these names as class names is Conways All the World's Fighting Ships (1922-1946).

Conways
Refers to the Flower class, first ship from Smith Dock being Gladiolus
Also Hunt class in three types; first ship of type one was Atherstone;Where have you seen Atherstone class? Also Tribal class, 1st ship Afridi; where have you seen Afridi class?
(You may be tired of looking them up, but you haven't given any yet).
Again, it’s only you that says that can’t be the class name, and you are wrong.


.g) The point isn’t just about difficulty ; try Wikipedia: Naming Conventions (common names), first, second and probably third points.

Xyl 54 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I've replaced my opening comment; why did you delete it? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"why did you delete it? " If it got deleted, it was purely inadvertent.
"so are they called Jervis class?" Actually, they are. The generic name (yes, I knew you were going there) is J&K class, & doubtless that's how they're best known. It isn't how they're best known that is the issue; it's how they're correctly known.
"where have you seen Afridi class?" Fitzsimons, Volume 1, p.44: "more commonly known as the 'Tribal' class". Notice "commonly".
"Where have you seen Atherstone class?" Fitzsimons, Volume 2, p.187: "first group, or Type I, of the famous 'Hunt' class" Notice he doesn't identify 'Hunt' as a lead ship, or even as name of a ship in the class. (Yes, I know, he calls them "'Hunt' class"; like many others, he's using the generic name, not the official one, after having correctly identified them as Atherstones. Which is exactly what I did.)
Gladiolus is clearly identified as a class of corvettes. Fitzsimons, Volume 9, p.965, lists 'Flower' as "generic name for British corvette class, see Gladiolus".
"class name cannot be a generic name, and you are wrong." Prove it. RN & USN standard practise is, has been, lead ship is class ship. Absent a Royal Navy source saying otherwise, I stand by that. Conway, or Jane's, don't qualify.
"class name always following the lead ship is correct, and I am saying you are wrong." Prove it. Show me an official source, not a popular one, that says otherwise. "Only a Trekphiler would think otherwise."? Seems Anthony Preston thinks so, too; viz Fitzsimons passim (all 24 volumes). Or do you claim he's wrong, & as ill-informed & ignorant as you think I am? That is an astounding ego you've got, that you know better than he does. I'm following a long-established tradition. If you want to overthrow that, you're gonna need a lot more than you've got.
"So far as I can see the class name is anything that easily describes the class." Wrong. The common name "is anything that easily describes the class", whence "Hunt", "Tribal", &c. The class name is often (usually?) less-known and -used, except by specialists; that does not mean it ceases to be class name. Take a look at official RN docs; you won't find 'Hunt' or 'Tribal' classes in them, I wager. Think of the difference between the official U.S. Army name for the Garand, to take just 1 example. That it's ".30 M1 selfloading Garand" doesn't mean it's commonly called that; do you argue the official name has been changed? That's the argument you're making for Gladiolus, more or less: because she's commonly called a 'Flower', the class is 'Flower'. It isn't.
"specifically give these names as class names" Absent having it in front of me, I'll wager he does what most writers do, uses the generic name as if it was the class name. Most writers don't use Gladiolus, because (as noted) it's not as widely known. I repeat, we should not be perpetuating ignorance. I see nothing in what you've said to explain why we should. Trekphiler (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So finally, we find out what your source actually says: I’d have looked it up myself, but my city library doesn’t have a copy; actually, it isn’t listed in the British Library catalogue either, which suggests it isn’t published in the UK . (Unless it isn’t a book at all; it sounds like one of theose magazine issues that build up into a collection; is that what it is? And you were being sniffy about Conway as a source? ) My library does have quite a few books by Anthony Preston though including one called Flower Class Corvettes. Make of that what you will.

I can’t see that the quote says what you say; “Flower a generic name for British corvette class, see Gladiolus” whats that? A link to a class, or to the ship itself?

But what the hell, You have a source that says the same as you; or at least one that makes the same mistake as you. Now you need to set against that are all the other sources, which you dismiss out of hand, which say the correct name is Flower class.

As for “This is standard RN practice...show me an official source, not a popular one, that says otherwise”: Well, no; you’re the one making the assertion that what is generally understood to be RN practice is in fact wrong, so I’d say it’s up to you to prove what you claim. You could try here to start with .here http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/ or here http://www.royal-navy.org/ .( though both of them list ship class by a mixture of lead ship and generic names ); Or with the USN document Thewellman gave you

Anyway, none of this justifies the sweeping change you’ve made to the article, it merely justifies a note to the effect that it’s an alternative description. And even if the original tranche of ships would be called Gladiolus class, there were so many variations in the original design that Gladiolus seems inappropriate even for the original 167 ships, let alone the revised design.

And it still conflicts with WP naming convention,

And still conflicts with WP being descriptive, not prescriptive.

Anyway, I don’t know if any of this is going to penetrate that bubble of self-righteousness you’ve wrapped yourself in; and I don’t have the time or computer access to engage in an edit war with you over it, so I’ve referred it for a second opinion.

What a very odd and depressing argument that seems to be going on.
1) The claim that Royal Navy classes are named after the lead ship. This is a generalisation. It has already been pointed out where this simply doesn't hold water. The Tribals are named after Tribes, the Hunts after Fox hunts, the Countys after English counties, the Castles after castles, the Crown Colonies after British colonies. The Flowers are named after flowers. The ship class could be named after a lead ship, it could just as easily be named after something the names had in common. Therefore the argument that the class is actually the Gladiolus class simply because that was the first ship is an utter fallacy.
2) The claim that only the ignorant are referring to these ships as Flower class, and by extension a ship class by anything other than the lead ship's name. J.J. Colledge in his Ships of the Royal Navy, considered the standard work on Royal Navy ships uses Flower class. The Imperial War Museum uses Flower class. Janes uses it. Ronald Spector's At War at Sea uses it (and also refers to the Tribals), Conways uses it. These are reliable sources, most of them damn more so than what you're quoting, and you have no justification for discounting them because you dislike what they say. The veterans' association is called the Flower class. see here for the Royal Navy referring to ship classes (in this case the 'County' class) by something other than the first ship launched. And wait! what's this? A picture of a Flower class corvette on the Royal Navy's website?
In short this is getting absurd. A number of editors have been trying to point out to you that your notion that the official class name is Gladiolus is not rooted in anything more than your personal opinion and a few sources, that are challenged by many others. Yes class names could have varying degrees of acceptance. The York class cruisers have also been referred to as the 'Cathedral' class, but the overwhelming majority of sources agree that the official use is York class. Those same sources agree that the official name is 'Flower' class, and the consensus is that is what the page should be at. As you point out, redirects are cheap. By all means create one from 'Gladiolus' class if it will make you feel better and lets get on with our lives. Benea (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And as to the claim that they were never officially referred to as the Flower class, here is summary of some Admiralty documents produced in 1945, and held by the public record office, that errr refer to this as the 'Flower' class. There are many more if you want to check. Benea (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If the page stays at "Flower", I can live with it. I've sourced the change, which (AFAIK) is all I need to keep it in the page; you can argue with Preston over "misunderstanding of Royal Navy conventions", 'cause it's his authority I'm relying on, not mine. All the sources on the other side don't (AFAIK) say Gladiolus is not the class name; they don't say it is, either. (Or am I "misunderstanding" that, too?) So who's misunderstanding the sources? Or conventions?
"collection of magazines"? London, Phoebus Publishing, 1978 (reprinted in the U.S. by Columbia/CBS). Look it up.
FYI, tho, "misunderstanding" or no, using the generic name offends me esthetically. "Self-righteous"? I guess so. Trekphiler (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the string of sources that people have taken the trouble to list, that would be, err you. Why would they bother to write "The Flower class corvettes, which were not called the Gladiolus corvettes, were built..." This is called "Proving a negative." And where have you got this concept of a generic name from, which seems to state that a ship class must always officially known by the first ship? An official source would help your case though somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you failed to provide one. Benea (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should use the common name for its subject, even if it's wrong (and I don't think Flower class is wrong) - this is the standard Wikipedia naming convention. That's why the article on Libya isn't titled the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Jll (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really very simple - they're collectively called the Flower class because the ships were all named after Flowers. Similarly the Hunt class were all named after British Fox hunts, the Tribal class were named after Tribal peoples, Castle class named after British Castles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.58 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement[edit]

I've moved this:-
"The Gladiolus-class corvette (commonly called "Flower" class)..."
to here; this edit should wait until the discussion (above) is resolved, hey?
Xyl 54 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing the lead back as a compromise until the issue of moving the page is settled. RN classes are named for the lead ship. Gladiolus was lead ship. QED. Trekphiler (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No, putting it to what you changed it to and started the row in the first place isn’t a compromise; in the case of a dispute it should go back to the status quo ante.
So I’ve changed it back, again.
Xyl 54 (talk)
You've also changed Flower class to Gladiolus class throughout; the easiest thing would be to undo the whole edit, but I notice you've made a number of constructive edits as well; are we going to agree to change the back until this is resolved, or do I have to ditch the lot? Xyl 54 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"do I have to ditch the lot?" I've sourced the reason for my change. Unless you've got a better source that says Gladiolus is not class ship, you've got no basis to change it. Trekphiler (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that’s the point at issue, isn’t it? So it should be status quo ante until it’s resolved. Anyway, I’ve put what I ‘d consider was a compromise opening statement; And I’ve put all the references to Gladiolus back to Flower (un-italicized for class name, in quotations for generic use -“a “Flower”, the “Flowers”); which is the status quo ante, as it should be ‘til this is resolved. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A Possible Explanation: When the ships of this Class were ordered the only people who would know the numbers ordered would be the Admiralty and it would be they who were required to come up with a suitable naming scheme for the ships. For a large number of ships - such as the ones this article is about - a naming theme with a sufficient number of discrete names would be required. Hence the decision to name the ships with the names of flowers. This would naturally result in the ships being referred-to within the Admiralty as the 'Flower-class'. This would all be secret.
At the builder's, little or none of this would be known, and hence if a builder was building several of these ships, upon completion of the first one, and subsequent naming, the design would quite likely be referred-to by they and the public at large as the 'Gladiolus Class'. At this point neither they (the builders) or the public would be aware of the names of the other ships being built, nor that they were the 'Flower-class'. Hence it is quite possible that contemporary naval publications and newspaper reports might refer to the new ships initially as the 'Gladiolus Class'.
BTW, they were not named after flowers for any particular reason other than there being sufficient numbers of flower names available for use by such a larger number of ships. The assumption that many in high places at the Admiralty were keen gardeners probably also helped.

United States Coast Guard[edit]

I request a citation for United Stated Coast Guard use of Flower class corvettes or Action class gunboats. Coast Guard crews manned a number of United States Navy vessels including some destroyer escorts and most of the Tacoma class frigates during the second world war, but relatively few of these ships (designated by a "W" prefix to the hull classification symbol) were actually Coast Guard vessels. Would it be more appropriate to note parenthetically "(some manned by U.S. Coast Guard)" if that was the case for these corvettes? Thewellman (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I had not appreciated the difference between a USCG vessel and a USN vessel manned by USCG. As they were USN ships I have moved the USCG reference down from the first paragraph to keep it short, since it is really now just an aside, and provided a citation. Jll (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There were a total of 18 Flower class vessels in US service and all of them were US Navy vessels. The frist group, the originsal 10 built in the UK, were transfered to the US as a result of an agreement reached at the Arcadia conference in January 1942. All were US Navy manned and funded with 5 vessels initially going to the Eastern Sea Frontier and the rest going to the Caribbean Sea Frontier.

The additional eight were Modified Flowers built in Canada. They were transfered to the US Navy in 1942 but did not arrive until 1943. All of the Modified Flowers were US Coast Guard manned and funded with US Coast Guard crews and officers. However, they remained US Navy vessels. Jayman435 (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Flower Classes in US Service[edit]

The original 10 Flowers built in the UK were officially Temptress Class vessels. The USS Temptress was the first vessel transfered to the US as the result of an agreement reached at the Arcadia Conference. The additional 8 Modified Flowers built in Canada were oficially Action Class vessels. The USS Action was assigned pennant number PG86, the first number in the class. Jayman435 (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Armament[edit]

It is stated that the RCN ships were incapable of using a gyrocompass. Surely it would be more accurate to say they weren't fitted with one, as the statement reads like the RCN vessels had some defect or design difference that precluded the use of a gyrocompass. Oddbodkin (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, there were no manufacturing facilities for gyro-compasses in Canada during the war period, but I suspect that Canadian-built Flowers that crossed the Atlantic to Britain did however have them fitted on arrival in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to add, Macpherson mentions this in his "Corvettes of the Royal Canadian Navy"; the gyrocompass (also electronic plots, and modern sonar) required a low-power electricity supply, which was not present in the earliest Flowers, and installing them meant an extensive re-wiring. So "unable to use one" would be correct; but "fitted on arrival in the UK" wouldn't be, necessarily. All the early Flowers were affected, I gather, but while the RN ships were generally modified piecemeal, or even while still with the builders, the Canadian vessels tended to be completed per the original design, and pressure of use meant they waited a long time before being re-fitted. There was also a lack of firms producing the equipment, and of shipyards able to do the work. Hence the early design flaws (like the short forecastle, especially, and the lack of a gyrocompass, here) persisted in the RCN ships far longer than they did in the RN ones. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

KM use[edit]

I’ve moved the "Kriegsmarine use" section down the page a bit. There didn’t seem much point in it being where it was, and it gave those four vessels a prominence they really didn’t warrant. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge tag[edit]

There is a Merge tag on the Ships section of this article (suggesting a merge of that section with the List of Flower-class corvettes article) but there's been no discussion opened here or on the linked talk page there.
On that basis I'm inclined to delete it, but (for the record) I think the proposal isn't a good idea. The "List of.." article currently lists all the Flower's by post-war operator, while the Ships section here focuses on WWII service. I think the List of article is a useful stand-alone resource, though it might be worth renaming it "List ... by operator", to clarify the content.
I assume the reason for the proposal is because of the article size (155Kb to date) which is a good reason to split it up, but moving the Ships section out would just inflate the List article instead. A better remedy (I suggest) would be to divide this article between the original and the modified Flowers, and have a "Modified Flower-class corvette" article as well as this one. Both Conway and Elliott make this distinction, and treat these as separate classes, so it is well-supported by source; and the resulting articles would both be of a more manageable size. Any thoughts on that? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The only issue I can think of is that in RCN service, some of the original corvettes were brought up to the IE standards. Llammakey (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Closing, given no support over 2 years.
Resolved
Klbrain (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flower-class corvette. 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:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)