Talk:Bird-class patrol vessel

A fact from Bird-class patrol vessel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 October 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Bird class patrol vessels were so unsuccessful that they were never used in their designed role?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/October.

Wikipedia

Ships

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Although I was the one who added the information on the Canadian Bird-Class, I now realize that they are actually a completely different class. Could someone give me some direction on moving the Canadian content to a new article, and perhaps differentiating the titles? Cadet Pilot (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the information (you are right, they are a different and unrelated class). If you want to create an article for them, it would be Canadian Bird-class patrol vessel, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), and examples United States Porpoise-class submarine, etc. Benea (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard links and mention of unseaworthiness

The note that these vessels were considered "unseaworthy" interested me, but it appears all the Hansard links (the links to government proceedings) are now defunct. I found the following in Hansard myself; "Those vessels suffered primarily from a design fault in that they were short and fat. They were not seaworthy and, because of their short profile, in winds of more than force 5, 80 per cent. of the ship's company would be seasick and flat on their backs, and the ship could hardly be described as operational." - Sir Richard Ottaway (Lieutenant, RN, Ret.) - column 238, Defense Estimates, vol.46, 19/07/1983. The complete record can be found here (as of 28/12/2022): https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1983-07-19/debates/662b1ebb-29ac-4ab7-92c6-fd5e3d097fd0/DefenceEstimates?highlight=%22bird%20class%22#contribution-dc804250-0fa9-405b-bd4b-b98534c3aff9 185.69.144.210 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]