Talk:List of destroyer classes of the Indian Navy

A-class review/Article's tables

Due to the large discussion held on the article review between myself and another editor that has been collapsed on the review page, I will be repasting the majority of what was written for ease of accessibility for any editor that would like to review these changes. Mr rnddude (talk)

• I have noticed a long-standing tradition that list articles for military ships use the following table:

Ship	Armament	Armor	Displacement	Propulsion	Service
					Laid down	Commissioned	Fate

• I would expect that any A level list article about military ships, and indeed any article about a military ship, be able to describe the ship to at the least this detail. It's rather important that a person going through this article is given an overview of the ships in terms of the guns and weapons on it (armament), the thickness of the armour, how heavy it is (displacement; the amount of water it displaces in weight should equal the weight of the actual ship), the propulsion system (engines, shafts, what have you), and a brief overview of the ships service (as described by the table). I am however okay with the current additions of origin and references and definitely recommend they be left as part of the current tables.

• Sub-note; if one or more of these pieces of information is not available, on the count of the fact that these are current military ships and detailed data on them may not be publicly available, then the omission of that information is of course acceptable. I can't expect you to add information that isn't available after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note; implementing this will still affect the way the article is written, each of the classes would need to have their own table and section which should include a summary of the ship class as well. The images in the table would probably need to be moved out of the table and set neatly under the section title and above the actual table. The no. of ships section would become redundant in this case. I'll add however, if each of the ships in the class are identical to each other in terms of the raw data (armament, armour, displacement etc) then it may not be necessary to redesign the article entirely in this way. Just include the missing information pertinent to each class and that should solve this issue.

• There is are a few bolded words in the lede, is this necessary or can we de-bold all these words?
• Temporary note; I have only skimmed the article at this point, I will take a more in-depth look at it tomorrow and will update with further thoughts. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thank you for the suggestions. I will work them on accordingly. But before that, I have some doubts regarding the table you've suggested. Firstly, I cannot find the information about the 'Armor' for any of the ships. So, I wish to omit the column. And the same with 'Propulsion'. In this case, I am considering of replacing the 'Propulsion' column with 'Speed', which is available for all the ships. Secondly, it is regarding the armament. It is good to provide the information which is available, but I think adding information about the armament will make the column too heavy. For example: When you consider INS Kolkata (D63), it information regarding it armament from the article's infobox is as follows:

Anti-air missiles:

• 4 × 8-cell VLS, for a total of 32;
• Barak 8 missiles (Range: 0.5 km (0.31 mi) to 90 km (56 mi))

• Anti-ship/Land-attack missiles:

• 2 × 8-cell UVLM for 16 BrahMos anti-ship and land-attack missiles
• Guns:
• 1 × 76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM
• 4 × AK-630 CIWS

• Anti-submarine warfare:

• 4 × Mark 46 torpedo Torpedo tubes
• 2 × RBU-6000 anti-submarine rockets

Do you want me to include all this information. If it is required, I'll definitely. Please clarify me on this dubiety. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured that armour and propulsion might be a problem, I had looked at the Kolkata class ships and noted that armour information was not available. In terms of armament, it does seem to be a bit unwieldy, perhaps condensing it to something like;

• 4 × 8-cell VLS, for a total of 32 anti-air missiles;
• Barak 8 missiles (Range: 0.5 km (0.31 mi) to 90 km (56 mi))
• 2 × 8-cell UVLM for 16 BrahMos anti-ship and land-attack missiles
• 1 × 76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM
• 4 × AK-630 CIWS
• 4 × Mark 46 torpedo Torpedo tubes
• 2 × RBU-6000 anti-submarine rockets

I'm not sure that the headings are entirely necessary since each line will describe the type of weapon itself. The downside is it looks less clean then with the headings. I do note however that both ships in the Kolkata class have the same armament, perhaps just have it look like this;

Class	Picture	Type	Ships	Armament	Origin	Displacement	References

I might also consider suggesting yet another version, Alternative the third;

Kolkata class

Ships	Picture	Armament	Displacement	Service		Origin	References
				Laid down	Commissioned

The above are just a couple alternatives that would allow you to include the armament details. To just quickly explain this change, it's based on the premise of setting the class as the heading, including a paragraph about the class, and then using the table to deal with the major aspects of each ship. I will note that this will have a rather significant impact on the article, as such, I'm willing to get some outside opinions on my suggestion. I based my original comment off of prior experience with AL and FL class articles of this type, usually dealing with WW2 ships and not modern ones. Sorry for the walls of text though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thank you. I will work accordingly and will notify you once done. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 06:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I have reconstructed the commissioned ships section accordingly. Please review it and suggest the improvements required. If it is well and good, I'll the apply the same to the other two sections. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga I think it adds quite a bit to the list in both quantity and quality (will confirm on further reading) and I note that each class, currently operating, has been expanded quite a bit. Feel free to do the same to the other two sections as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I have expanded the other two sections too. Please review the entire article accordingly and suggest any further improvements required. I have not included prose for the Kolkata class in future ships section, as prose of the class is already mentioned in previous section of Kolkata class in commissioned ships. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, I will remove or archive this thread in about one week or at the end of the review, whichever is necessary Note also that I have greatly trimmed unnecessary content from the original thread, that content is already available in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mr rnddude. Looking forward to hear from you. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the tables are too wide; the need for a scroll bar impacts appearance and affects readability. Miniapolis 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: What would be suggestion? I am pinging Mr rnddude into this discussion. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand Miniapolis's comment, however, I don't have a scroll bar appear on the bottom (from left to right) when I use my laptop and assume that a similar thing would be the case for many desktops. How wide is your screen Miniapolis? just so I can have an idea of how much it's affecting the readability. Do you need to scroll a lot or a little, in terms of columns; is it one column too wide or more. That way I can try to identify which columns are of least importance. Also, per chance, are you zoomed in to +125% or something? I only get a scroll bar at +150% hence why I ask. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My desktop has an external 18-inch (46 cm) monitor. Looking at the first table, I think the images should be smaller to save space. The "Armament" column is too narrow, and there's no need for a separate "References" column; the ref(s) can be part of the "Origin" field on this table (and the last field on each line of the others). I haven't taken a look at the markup yet, but there may be other ways to minimize scrolling. All the best, Miniapolis 20:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I agree with Mr rnddude that scroll bar doesn't appear on the bottom (l to r) in my desktop. My monitor is a just an inch bigger than yours i.e 19-inch (48 cm). Adjust the images sizes if required. But the images in decommissioned ships section were already small, I would prefer not reducing them further. I agree with your opinion regarding the references column. You may merge it up with "Origin" column if required. More importantly, please fix the issues with the grammar and style in the prose of the article. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 02:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Title change?

I suggest moving this to List of Indian Navy destroyers: a more intuitive, less-clunky title. All the best, Miniapolis 13:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I don't know whether that might right. Generally, it is the naming followed for lists of ships, examples. But the title you've suggested is looking good. Anyways I would like to ping AustralianRupert for suggestion regarding this. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

G'day, in my opinion "List of Indian Navy destroyers" is probably the better option. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I moved the page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the suggestion, I did accordingly. Please also have a look at the discussion in the above section regarding the columns of the tables. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of destroyers of India. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202183511/http://www.mazagondock.gov.in/newsite2010/pdfs/msg/KEEL%20LAID%20FOR%20YARD%2012704.pdf to http://www.mazagondock.gov.in/newsite2010/pdfs/msg/KEEL%20LAID%20FOR%20YARD%2012704.pdf

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of destroyers of India. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105033616/http://brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=60 to http://brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=60

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of destroyers of India. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630163214/http://indiannavy.nic.in/content/vikramaditya-viraat-delhi-class-rajput-class-kolkata-class to http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/vikramaditya-viraat-delhi-class-rajput-class-kolkata-class

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)