Talk:List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Speedy Deletion
This article I feel fits the criteria. It's no more than a cherry picking duplication of Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy and Submarines of the People's Liberation Army Navy. I also feel that this article was partly created as an attempt to portray an inaccurate picture of the current strength (i.e number of ships) of the PLAN. This article clearly shows the editor/editors involved have cherry picked which ships to included and which ships not to include - thus arriving at a manipulated and calculated total of ships for the PLAN. This is against Wikipedia policy, especially regarding POV and original research.
The articles: Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy and Submarines of the People's Liberation Army Navy already go into detail the full strength of the PLAN. We do not need this article.TalkWoe90i 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
explain?
Can someone the clarify "Status" column? What is the difference between "Active", "Active" and "Active"? (why 3 different colors?)
I notice there is also blue for both "Sea Trials" and "Fitting Out", and red for "Decommissioned". Are the colors really necessary?
Also, what's the difference between "Active" and "Operational"?
Thanks - theWOLFchild 03:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Explain recent changes
Could User:纸豪 please explain hisrecent changes, in particular; mass removal of content from tables; and formatting/content which violates the guidelines at WP:MOSFLAG, MOS:TABLES and MOS:LIST. In the meantime, I have WP:BRD in effort to encourage talk page discussion and would advise User:纸豪 to seek consensus and ensure his edits are not bad/poor form. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Vijay rath, will you now like to discuss the matter here per the above? Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Despite my attempts to get him here, User:Vijay rath clearly has no interest in discussing the reasons for his edits, and will probably return to gutting and destroying this article once the page protection expires. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- hello ,User:Vijay rath i do not know how to talk on talk pages.please help me, i am new in field of editing . I was at war with Antiochus the Great because in my point of view the edit decriebed the page more appropriatly. 10:34 18 December 2016 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay rath (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ User:Vijay rath. You were well able to leave a comment on my talk page, why do you need help now? Your explanation is very vague and does not deal with the issues I have brought up above. Firstly, you are inserting flag icons and images with thumbnails & captions into the tables (this is against Wikipedia's MOS guidelines). Secondly, you are inserting both retired and planned ships/ship classes into the article (note this is a list of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships, so your argument that "the edit decriebed the page more appropriatly" is invalid). Thirdly, in order to make these changes you have removed a vast amount of content/information from the article without discussion or consensus. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ User:Vijay rath, I think you need to read up on relevant Wikipedia policy before editing. You've just admitted to not understanding how to use a talk page and that you are new to the field of editing. If that is the case, then you should practice by using the sandbox before making substantial changes to any article. Llammakey (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
US Navy hull classification symbols
Just out of curiosity, why does the article use US Navy hull classification symbols such as "SSBN" or "LPD"? I'm not a specialist in naval warfare, but to my knowledge these are not an international standard even if the US Navy uses them to classify other navies' vessels. Tupsumato (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is no international standard for hull symbols, is there? You probably want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not. However, considering that labeling a submarine "SSBN" is a US Navy (NATO?) practice, we probably shouldn't do it in Wikipedia for foreign navies. A ballistic missile submarine is just a ballistic missile submarine. Tupsumato (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- WP calls these "prefixes" and we don't use them if the foreign navy doesn't, which China doesn't. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and Ship prefix. This article uses them parenthetically but not as part of the ship name. In my opinion, we should not be using them in this article at all. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- They are different from a prefix (e.g. in USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) "USCGC" is the prefix and "WAGB" is the hull classification symbol. I agree with you that they should not be used for other navies' vessels even if in some Tom Clancy novel the characters talk about "Soviet SSBNs" (made-up example). Anyway, once the bigger issues in the article have been sorted out, we can pay more attention to this. Tupsumato (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Feel free to weigh in on the discussion above.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- They are different from a prefix (e.g. in USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) "USCGC" is the prefix and "WAGB" is the hull classification symbol. I agree with you that they should not be used for other navies' vessels even if in some Tom Clancy novel the characters talk about "Soviet SSBNs" (made-up example). Anyway, once the bigger issues in the article have been sorted out, we can pay more attention to this. Tupsumato (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- WP calls these "prefixes" and we don't use them if the foreign navy doesn't, which China doesn't. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and Ship prefix. This article uses them parenthetically but not as part of the ship name. In my opinion, we should not be using them in this article at all. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not. However, considering that labeling a submarine "SSBN" is a US Navy (NATO?) practice, we probably shouldn't do it in Wikipedia for foreign navies. A ballistic missile submarine is just a ballistic missile submarine. Tupsumato (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
September 2017
533 and 138 have the same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.150.189 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)