Jump to content

Talk:List of current ships of the Royal Canadian Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2016WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved

Untitled

[edit]

These aren't listed on the Navy website (http://www.navy.forces.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp)

HMCS Anticosti(II) (MCM 110), and HMCS Moresby (MCM 112)...former Jean Tide and Joyce Tide do not appear in the history either. These two ships were commissioned into service (1989) as a stop gap measure prior to the (MCDV) Kingston class to provide mine sweeping training and coastal defence training, primarily for the Naval Reserve. Both, of the same class, were purchased from Tidewater Marine and refitted in Newfoundland. They were originally offshore supply vessels.

--85.68.21.213 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last three are presumably not real, although the Bonaventure is, but maybe it was retired.

Alright, the above problem is solved...and I added all the ships I could glean off the Navy website (although this computer at work logged me off in the process), but they don't have all of them listed in their history section. There is probably a better way to make this list, but I'm probably not the person to do it :) Adam Bishop 04:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found a book that would be extremely useful for this page - The Ships of Canada's Naval Forces 1910-1993: A Complete Pictorial History of Canadian Warships, by Ken Macpherson and John Burgess. If it helps, the ISBN is ISBN 0920277918. I don't have time to go through it thoroughly right now (and probably won't for a few weeks, if not more), so if anyone else happens to have a copy of it and wants to do all the work, go right ahead! Adam Bishop 05:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've added all those in now. There are probably still some naming issues, especially since there are a lot of ships with the same name, which may or may not be the same ship. And there is probably a better way to organize the list. Adam Bishop 23:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over names that have been reused - just repeat the name or add a number. For example, see Athabaskan. Is there a wikistandard for this? Edmilne 23:38, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Simple answer -

  1. On the each ship's article, add {{otherships|genericname}}
  2. At [[Genericname]] create a wp:disambiguation page listing all such ships.
  3. Don't forget to put

    {{shipindex}} and

    [[Category:Disambiguation lists of ships]]

    at the bottom of the disambiguation list article.

  4. Where these ships also sailed under other names, add a {{see also|othername1|othername2}}
    See also: othername1 and othername2
    to each name's article. Also a good idea to show these othernames on the disambiguation page.
Have a look at HMS Powerful while you're at it. LeadSongDog 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long Lists into columns

[edit]

I've tried to accommodate longer lists of vessels into a more reader-friendly column format. Various US Navy pages use a similar approach, see here and here. If thats not a good thing let me know and I'll undo everything.Robert Brukner (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the columns are a good idea. Thank you for the edit. Llammakey (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fisherman's Reserve

[edit]

@Llammakey: Hi, I wonder if we ought to take the ships in the Fisherman's Reserve and break them out into their proper naval classifications as aux, tug, patrol, minesweepers, examination, etc.. It would fit with the general approach of other ship lists, bring it into line with rest of the article, and help eliminate a number of duplications and other inconsistencies. What do you think? Robert Brukner (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However there should be an asterisk or double cross symbol that should denote they were part of the Fisherman's Reserve and a note what the Fisherman's Reserve was, just to keep that information somewhere without swamping the section with text on every single ship. Llammakey (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classification headers and structure 1949-1989

[edit]

@Llammakey: Thanks for all the corrections you've made. How do you feel about removing wikilinks from the headers in this section, just as you did in the current fleet section, and organizing all the destroyers together as found in the 1922-1948 section? Robert Brukner (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only destroyers post-1945 were the Iroqouis. The St. Laurents and so forth were destroyer escorts, which were the NATO equivalent name at the time for the modern frigate. Individual sources call them destroyers, destroyers escorts and some even refer to the classes as frigates as they were essentially just Canadianized versions of the Whitby-class frigates of the UK. You can merge all the destroyer escorts together, as everything from the St. Laurent to the Annapolis class were one base design with modifications. But the Iroquois and any other destroyers that came post war were different beasts all together. As for wikilinks in titles, most of them are class names and they should be placed on the side like the earlier commissioning sections. Llammakey (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos and Assessment

[edit]

@Llammakey: I'm adding some historic and current photo's of some of the larger classes. I'm thinking maybe we could tidy this up a bit more and then get the article assessed and moved up the chain. Thoughts? Robert Brukner (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Keep in mind that the photos themselves have to be properly sourced too. Llammakey (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey: I'm popping in photos now, plus tidying up, and placing categories against all vessels and sub-categories. Unfortunately, there are a heck of a lot of red wikilinks. That will take ages to fix up. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind those directives from WPSHIPS and WPMILHIST as to what is considered notable. There has to be reliable secondary sources giving broad coverage to the subject. So the destroyers, corvettes and aircraft carriers all have multiple books about them. I doubt many of the WWII tugs and auxiliaries do. Some might and those deserve pages, however the vast majority do not. Keep them in the list, but do not make pages for them. As for ships of the Fisherman's Reserve that were linked before; down the line I intended to make a page about the Fisherman's Reserve and link those ships to it, however that's a project for another day. Llammakey (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Llammakey: While there are many things to improve, I've reviewed some Featured Lists, and this compares well. I think its ready to go into Assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment for Featured List status. Are you ok if I drop it into the Assessment request queue? At least we'll get feedback and suggestions for improvements. cheers Robert Brukner (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, go ahead. Good luck with the assessment. Llammakey (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey: I submitted the article for formal assessment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I'm curious to see how the assessments compare. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this article aiming for a B(BL?)-class on the MilHist Project site, I had a look at it and noticed that there are a lot of small paragraphs and a couple large paragraphs which lack citations, I put citation needed markers on those. I am about to go through the entire article, I will check it against the BL criteria since that seems to be what this article is after. Will post my notes below, or if necessary will create a second heading and the notes will be under there. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Thank you for your attention and time. The edits were intended to improve the content at many levels. As I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of each of the various classes, I'd appreciate your assessment of where it might optimally fit. B-class seems about right, though BA or BL, I do not know.Robert Brukner (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Llammakey: HI, The article was listed as BL-class and I am proceeding to systematically address the recommendations of the reviewer and see if I can take it to AL-class. Many thanks for your advice, suggestions and ongoing edits!! Robert Brukner (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BL-Class Assessment Notes (For the Military History Project Site)

[edit]

Hello there,

I decided to take on reviewing this article against the BL-Class assessment criteria. Below are notes on how the article could be improved, or in cases needs to be improved, before passing the assessment.

BL1: As I have stated above there are several sections which lack the necessary citations, while most paragraphs have at least one citation, two issues still exist. 1) Not all paragraphs have a valid citation and 2) A single citation is not necessarily sufficient. All information needs to be sourced, where information is sourced from a variety of sources all of these need to be attributed.

BL2: Currently this is fine, but might do with some improvement.

Additional Notes and Ideas: 1. After further review, considering that this list is eventually going after the Featured List level, I have noted down a couple basic ideas that I think will be necessary to achieve FL status.

(a) Provide a brief summary for each of the classes currently active (about 100-200 words or more if necessary). For the historical fleet I think the blurb at the start is fine.

(b) Consider expanding on the current tables to also include armament, armour and/or other general characteristics (no need to go overboard on this) for the active ships (and maybe for the decommissioned Iroquois ones if necessary). Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battlecruisers_of_Russia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States

(c) Lastly, I think this is actually very important, try to ensure that the images don't break the flow of the list (refer BL3)

Side-note: I highly recommend you visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FL-Class_military_history_articles, there's a few articles in there that have achieved FL status and that deal with ships. They may help direct you with your project.

There's a few FL lists in there that deal with ships and they seem to have one common feature. They are very clean and well-researched. By very-clean I mean that the structure remains consistent throughout and images used sparingly and positioned so that they don't interfere with the article's flow. By well-researched I mean that they contain a fair amount of information that has been succinctly summarized into a single (or couple) paragraph(s).

2. HMCS Saskatoon.jpg <- this is just sitting in the Kingston-class coastal defence vessel paragraph, I think this is just a simple mistake but may be part of an actual image.

3. The 'Weapon systems' paragraph lists a series of shipborne and airborne weapons, are these applicable to the Kingston-class or all of the navy's ships? this section had me quite confused to be honest.

(a) The Weapon systems section left me confused, but I figure that the topic deals with systems across all of the navy. Maybe add a little blurb saying so?
(b) Also why have the Support and auxiliary vessels dealt with after the Weapon systems instead of before?

BL3: This is fine. But could use a little (possibly extensive) tweaking. 1. In some cases the images seem to be oddly placed, disrupting the flow of the article. This includes the placement of the images for the topics dealing with Aircraft carriers (Commissioned 1922-1947) and Cruise (Commissioned 1910-1922).

BL4: Just fine. BL5: Refer to BL3.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:

The article deals with, as far as I can tell, all of the topics it needs to quite well. However, before this article can be considered for BL-Class all of the citation needed markers need to be appropriately dealt with. While dealing with this will simultaneously fulfill the requirements for B2, I would recommend expanding on each individual topic (for FL-Class).

In dealing with your last post; The way the article is structured, it almost hybridizes between the two. However I believe it falls firmly in the list-class. I recommend taking a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_United_States_Army. It deals with certain topics like a normal article would but also has paragraphs of information in order sections. It's the closest example that I could find to the style you have undertaken. Most other "List of ships of the (insert navy here)" just have a simple list.

One more example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavy_cruisers_of_Germany

The above example is of a list that has achieved featured status, it goes into quite some detail about Germany's Heavy Cruisers before and during world war II. So it may also be a good link to use as a reference for structure and formatting reasons.

If you need any further help, feel free to put a message either here or on my talk page. Have a good day.

Mr rnddude (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: This is far more than I was expecting from the assessment. Thank you (!!) for spending so much time on such a thorough review and providing detailed recommendations. I am working through your suggestions now. In the short term with the aim of securing BL-class, I am completing the B1 requirements you've outlined and I'll shift the article to BL (self-assessed). After I work through all the other matters you've identified would you be able to assess the article for AL-class? Robert Brukner (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: I note that the convention is for independent assessment of the BL-class. So I have NOT altered the class and request your re assessment. I have addressed the key issues you brought up that should satisfy the BL-class listing. I continue to work on the other suggestions you have made in regard to progressing the article to FL-Class. Kind regards Robert Brukner (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Brukner: That's fine, I took a look through. All the citation needed markers have been cleared. I note that you've added a fair amount of information for the various classes and cleaned up some of the images. Re-assessed to BL-Class. The MilHist project has its own requirements for A-Class assessment, they're particularly high because they have the intention of getting any A-class articles (list as well I assume) to as close as possible to Featured. One thing, A class can take a while since a minimum of three (usually) reviewers need to look at it. One last thing, while I was looking through the list, reference 1 had an invalid error (I fixed by simply trying to edit, don't have a clue what happened.) and source 17 has a Missing or empty|Title. Not an issue, just something I noted.Mr rnddude (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Thank you, again! I've corrected all the citation errors. I've also systematically addressed every recommendation you made in the first round. I am going over the article in fine detail again, and trying to carefully match it against the AL-class and FL-class requirements. I hope to bring it forward for AL-class assessment in the near future. Robert Brukner (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A List class assessment -input requested

[edit]

The article was moved from Start to BL class. The assessor for BL-class status provided substantial input and recommendations for next steps. I have addressed these and request comment on whether the article is suitable for A List classification. Here are the criteria and my findings.

  • A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
    • article appears to meet this requirement.
  • A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
    • article appears to meet this requirement, however, I am uncertain that the Historic Fleet subsection fully does so.
  • A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
    • article appears to meet this requirement
  • A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
    • article appears to meet this requirement
  • A5. The article contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant.
    • article appears to meet this requirement

All thoughts and comments would be greatly welcome Robert Brukner (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, just wanted to mention that if you want an A-class review then you should follow this link and follow the instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-Class_review
I mention this because most visitors to a page don't automatically go to the talk page and so your request is likely to be missed. I only noticed it cause it's on my watch list. Best of luck with the review Mr rnddude (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Thanks! I'm just reaching out to others on this page, to obtain their inputs as I continue editing. I'll probably just take it up for A-class assessment shortly anyway. But there are a few reference and formatting issues I am cleaning up first. Robert Brukner (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Brukner: Ah, okay. I thought you were after a full assessment, didn't realize you were after a sort of draft check. Sorry mea culpa. I wish you all the best with the assessment when you get to it.Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Thank you. Please also see the note below. Robert Brukner (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did my copyedit. I'm going to look into whether those LCIs and HCs are italicised for you. Llammakey (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I have no clue. On one page they're italicised, on the next page, they're not.Llammakey (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey:!!! Thanks !!!I'm really blind to that sort of detail. At this point I feel sort of stuck. The current fleet section may be FL at this point if not even close to an FA. But the historic section has a lot of issues. Citations are scarce, there are so many red-letter links, and I am totally unsure of some of the auxiliary classes. Plus the sources are all conflictual about some of the ship names, whether a boat was commissioned or not, whether it was loaned/hired/commandeered/seconded and is generally going to take a long time to sort out. Maybe we should break up the article? I'd like to request advice also from @Mr rnddude: at this point. Robert Brukner (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clean up the red links. Remember about red links, the ships themselves have to be notable and have secondary sources about them. I just rewrote the article about the PV minesweepers this morning and I had only a couple of mentions. The vast majority will not be mentioned outside primary sources. I have a copy of Macpherson's Canada's Naval Forces, Gimblett's Canada's Navy and Reserve books and several copies of Jane's going back a couple of decades. I'll go through whatever is in there to deal with red links, because if they are not in the most exhaustive secondary sources about Canadian warships, they are not notable enough for individual articles. As for the government ships, they shouldn't be on this page. This would end up confusing people when the RCMP Marine unit and the CCG come into being. There should be a link to a page for a List of Canadian Government ships for all ships not commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy.
Ok. Got it. Sounds good. Before we delete any ships though, lets talk about it. Maybe you could put "< ! --- --->" around a questionable entry and if we find sources later we can reinclude that ship. I have made all my entries based on secondary published sources. "British Warships 1914-191 by F J Dittmar & J J College" has the PVs for example. And " Ships of the Royal Navy by J. J. Colledge, Ben Warlow" have a lot of the smaller CGS ships that served in the RCN. Do you accept the Canadian Navy List as a secondary source? Many do. The Navy Lists have a great many named smaller ships in it. The guys doing the US Navy wikipedia article make use of a similar product produced by the US navy. So I guess we can do the same. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting deleting any ships. I'm suggesting that the red links should only be for ships we can prove were commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. The Navy List is fine, I have no issues with it. All I did in my edits was remove the red links around any ship I think we'll have issues finding secondary sources for. There are some like Petrel which I left the red link around because I found it in my secondary sources but could not confirm if it joined the RCN or not. However if it was important enough to be mentioned, then it should get an article. As for the P.V. type, they didn't keep those names in Canadian service. In Canadian service they were only called P.V. I, P.V. II etc. They returned to those names like Amagansett after the war and after leaving Canadian service. I have Colledge and will go through that book too when I get a chance. Llammakey (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Now I get it. Sounds great to me. Robert Brukner (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, many ships aren't going to be notable enough to have their own page so no point in linking them. There's well over a thousand ships being dealt with in this article so its to be expected that not all of them will have their own pages, some may be created overtime if need be but this shouldn't really be an FL killing problem. Regarding the Historic fleet, in certain cases, the amount of available information will be scarce. The important part for FL is that the accessible existing information pertinent to the topic is covered and done so accurately. Though I will note, writing style is as much important here as information coverage. Most issues, that aren't major instant-fail issues, will be recorded during assessment and they can be addressed then as well. The article doesn't have to be perfect, just as good as possible and any issues that anybody has identified and corrected. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood Robert Brukner (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment next steps

[edit]

@Llammakey: I've exhausted pretty nearly all my references and have done as complete a review as possible. I've deleted a number of entries and clarified others. The secondary sources do no fully agree on the roles, classes, names, use of HMCS, and numbering for numerous auxiliary vessels. HMCS, CNAV and HMC get used almost interchangeably in many instances. At this point I've done what I can with the available resources. Let me know when you've completed any additional edits and then I'll take it over to get assessed to see if we can bump it up a couple of class levels. regards Robert Brukner (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Llammakey: I've been considering other country navy articles and the overall construction of our article in relationship to the Royal Canadian Navy article. The first section of this article is clearly defined, well structured and complete. It is a perfect expansion for the main RCN article, as it provides a very comprehensive explanation and illustration of the current fleet. It is also an article not a simple list. The historic section just doesn't match the standards of the first section, and it drags down the overall quality. Its basically just a list of ship names with photos. So I am going to break the article into two. I'll take the first part for assessment for FA status. I'll drop the second half in Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (Historic) and start to write up text in a manner that is similar to the main Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. That way we can move forward to complete the assessment and "lock down" the current fleet, and then keep fiddling with the historic section to improve it. I've also created three new lists from our current article's data -very simple lists of ships: List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the First World War, List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War and List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Cold War. I've carefully edited the list so that the ships in them are those that fall within those periods only. I hope you like the direction this is going in. There is still so much work to do the the historic fleet article!! Robert Brukner (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. That being said, on the current fleet page, you could make mention of the historical fleets and significant expansions and ship classes added. For example in a section about the Fleet and World War I period mention that the majority were converted yachts and auxiliary vessels with the exception of the two cruisers until late in the war when Canada added its first purpose built war vessels in the Battle class. Same kind of thing for the WWII and Cold War eras, don't give too much detail but give some context as to how the fleet has ebbed and flowed until the present. You're not giving a history of the RCN, more an accounting of the size and quality of vessel and fleet through time. Llammakey (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey: Thanks. Great ideas. I've been wondering how to build out the historic material. I figure focusing on the expansion and contraction would add a lot, along with an explanation of how the RCN fit within the British Empire, RN etc.. would help as well. There was so much integration in the early decades that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between what was "Canadian" as distinct from "Empire", or "RCN" from "RN". I've taken all the articles and lists to assessment and am starting to get feedback. So, I'll do what I can to integrate those suggestions as well. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyers

[edit]

Seeing as this is active fleet list I have elected to delete the destroyer section as their is no active destroyer in the Canadian navy. --Tempest717 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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) 00:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_current_ships_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Navy&oldid=1206827313"