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
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
There was a charade, in the mid-1800s. The original USS Constellation was a frigate, with a distinguished career. Decades later there was a freeze on building new vessels. Officials wanted to retire the old obsolete frigate, and build a new sloop, to a more modern design.
The freeze on new construction forced them to almost completely dismantle the old vessel, and incorporate the remaining solid timber and serviceable metal, into what was actually a new vessel.
When I was at University I took out and browsed through a book that was an illustrated and rather boring account of the "retrofit", that maintained the fiction that it was not a total rebuild. But a decade later I was on a mailing list on nautical matters that included some real smarty-pants, published authors. They set me straight that, in spite of what USN histories may claim, the original USS Constellation was a frigate, and a brand new vessel was constructed using some of her timbers, decades later. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan:They are not saying that Constellation should be listed as a Frigate, but that the rebuild should be listed as a sloop of war, not here. Then again, the pages on naval vessels seem to be a mishmash of contradictory information. Rockphed (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the point I made? USN histories maintain the fiction there was one vessel, originally a frigate, rebuilt as a sloop, with a very long career. But non-USN experts question this fiction, and maintain that the sloop was a brand new vessel, that happened to incorporate re-usable timbers and fittings from the frigate's disassembly. Two vessels - the original vessel a frigate, the second vessel a sloop. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither vessel was a corvette. One was a frigate, one was a sloop. If a sloop-of-war is a corvette, then why do we have a sloop of war article that isn't just a redirect to this article? I'll agree that the sloop of war article is spotty and much too briticentric, but if we are going to include a vessel that was never classified as a corvette in the list of notable corvettes we should explain why.Rockphed (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the picture as there are toooooo many photos of modern corvettes and the photo adds nothing. Its taken from an angle that shows a grey boat. Doesn't show features or length, size armament...it could be a frigate, an offshore patrol vessel, pretty much any kind of warship. Not to mention there is an ip-hopping vandal who insists on re-adding the photo. They could re-add it further down the article and they could stop overlinking Taiwan in the caption, but they won't, so I will keep reverting. Btw, it's not an edit war if there are six ips re-adding. Here's your discussion. Llammakey (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At issue is this picture. I won't include the caption because it isn't really relevant. The picture seems to show some of the features of the ship and some of its armament, but I agree that it does not add noticeable to the article. I think the stern of the ship is just out of frame.Rockphed (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what does this image show that the Italian ship doesn't? Because this is being added to the lead. Nothing. The Italian ship is in full frame, shows a helicopter being carried and all of its armament. I wouldn't even add this to the article in any part because its just a picture of a ship. There are tons of pictures of unmoving ships in harbour. Crew are even blocking the view of the armament. Nothing about this image says "CORVETTE". It adds absolutely nothing to the article. This article is not a gallery or a random collection of photos. It is an article about corvettes. There are even more photos that could be trimmed from the modern corvettes section as they don't really show anything either beyond a ship. Llammakey (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an idea for things to delete, please be bold and delete them. Just put your reason as "deleted superfluous pictures that do not add to the article." I almost went through and did that, but I don't feel comfortable deciding which images to keep and which to discard. I do agree that it is weird that there are 5 pictures of essentially the same modern ship and only 2 of age of sail (3 if you count the steam corvette). Rockphed (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hid a couple of the images and moved the images around a little. While we are on the topic, I don't suppose we can get a nice profile of a flower-class corvette to replace the current head-on image. Then we could at least make the argument that we are trying to show the ships in profile. The other thing we might want to do is to expand the captions to explain what readers should learn from looking at the various pictures. After all, while an expert might not need an image explained, lay people need to have what they are looking at explained to them before they understand (and experts do not come to wikipedia to learn).Rockphed (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think people chose that Flower-class image because it is colourised. This image does a pretty good job and I took it from the Flower-class article. However, saying anything like "note" and "take notice of" is a no-no from what I have learned from past experience. So I'm not sure how sure how to go about your suggestion about pointing out things. Llammakey (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language frowns upon that. How about "Corvette Comandante Foscari of the Italian Navy with a Helicopter on its aft helicopter pad", or "A Swedish Visby-class stealth corvette with its guns covered to reduce radar cross section". I'm not sure there is a good way to work information into all of the captions, but with 4 images of modern corvettes on the page, they are all somewhat samey without some discussion of what is going on in the picture. Even just explaining that the boxes on the front of the visby class corvette are covered armaments would help with understanding. Rockphed (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great way to go about it. Llammakey (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2019 (UTCy )
Strongly disagree, the picture stays because this ship happens to be the most technologically advanced stealth technology corvette in the world, the design of the ship allows it to travel much faster than European, Russian or American corvettes with a maximum speed of 45 knots, much faster than any Italian corvette. And it has very powerful weapons payload that is designed to carry Hsiungfeng III hypersonic nuclear missiles.[1][2][3] Additionally it’s built with the most technologically advanced microchips in the world designed and made by Taiwan microchip companies such as Taiwan a Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation. Taiwan’s computer microchip technology has surpassed even Intel Corporation making Taiwan officially the world’s most technologically advanced computer microchip maker, and as such this picture should remain in order to show what the most advanced corvette in the world looks like. read this:
That is all stuff that is important if you would put in the section. The image demonstrates none of that. The image is crap. So no it does not stay. Llammakey (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image for an article should not be of low quality unless other, better images are not to be found. Therefore, I will exchange the two images of Chinese vessels, making the poor-quality image last, and the modern, Taiwanese vessel first.
Sadly, this entire month-long edit war seems to have stemmed from the inclusion of flag icons in image captions, which is a violation of the MOS. Hubris has no place in Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes the Corvettes the Royal Canadian Navy operated, but does not list Canada as a current or former operator? Anyone got info? Greg Salter (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Corvette's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
_IWM_FL_22394.jpg)
