Talk:A-class minesweeper

Latest comment: 8 months ago by Nigel Ish in topic conflicting articles
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A-class minesweeper. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

conflicting articles

edit

this article conflicts with the article about HNLMS A, which of the articles is wrong? Lighningknight134 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lighningknight134 Specifically which part of this article do you believe conflicts with HNLMS A? - ZLEA T\C 00:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
the General characteristics has multiple differences to HNLMS A for example the article states the class weight 179 tons but in HNLMS A it states the ship weights 182 tons Lighningknight134 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like it may be due to confusion between a long ton and a short ton, both of which are known simply as "ton" in different parts of the English-speaking world. The A-class minesweeper article's figure of 179 short tons is entirely unsourced. Although there is a source provided for the HNLMS A article's figure of 179 long tons, the source itself only says "179 tons" without specifying short or long tons. A better source is probably needed to fix this issue. Until then, we should probably remove any instances of short/long tons from the infoboxes and list the displacement simply as "179 tons". - ZLEA T\C 17:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 gives displacement as 179 tons Standard on p 394, and in the abbrevations section handily states that "Long tons are used throughout".Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply