Talk:HMS Fortune (H70)

Proposed Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge HMCS Saskatchewan to HMS Fortune. Howicus (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose that HMCS Saskatchewan (H70) be merged into this article. It seems to be standard to have one article for each ship, even if the ship had different names. And since the ship was built as HMS Fortune and spent more time as HMS Fortune than as HMCS Saskatchewan, the merge should go here. If I don't get any comments after a few days, I'm going to go ahead and merge. Howicus (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. And if there are any others of the Canadian River-class DDs that haven't yet been merged into their RN progenitors, I'd go ahead and do them now as well. I know that I've done those of the C and D classes, but you should check the others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reverse merge the ship ended as HMCS Saskatchewan, and most of the content is at that article, so it should be this article that merged into that article. The information about the ship's bell is about the Saskatchewan, and Operation Overlord is for Saskatchewan. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There are cases where separate parts of a ship's career are handled in separate articles (the one that springs to mind is the carrier HMS Vengeance (R71)/Brazilian aircraft carrier Minas Gerais), but this should only happen if there is enough content on each phase of the ship's career to justify separate articles and too much to justify fitting it in one. This (at the moment) is not one of those cases, and if the article ever expands to the point where a split is sensible, it can be dealt with then.

As for where to merge to, the combined article should be at the name the ship is most famous/well-known for. I leave that to people more familiar with the ship/class history to determine. -- saberwyn 08:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. These articles should be merged, and it doesn't matter much which one is merged into which. At the moment there is more information in HMCS Saskatchewan (H70), but a quick look at the dates shows 8 years service with the RN (4 or 5 years at war) and 3 with the RCN (2 years at war). I suspect once Wikipedia is finished, HMS Fortune (H70) will seem the natural place for this article to reside, with a redirect from HMCS Saskatchewan (H70). Shem (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support The articles should be merged; I think both because of the chronology and the battle actions as HMS Fortune it makes sense to have this be the main article. Kirk (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - there is not really enough for two articles and the two service periods are strongly linked by the war against a common enemy. I've added material to both articles and it looks like at the moment there is bit more to say about Fortune during the war (2 submarines sunk, Battle of Dakar, Norwegian campaign, Malta, convoys etc) than there is about Saskatchewan (convoys, keeping the Channel clear, Normandy, convoys, refit and scrap). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is a dramatic change in consensus tomorrow, I'll probably merge to HMS Fortune in about 21 hours. Howicus (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging now. Howicus (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Fortune (H70)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not much to complain about here.

• 1 dupe link
• "as a fast minesweepers"
• Link battlecruiser
• I wonder about describing the Indian Ocean raid as an "invasion"
• "patrol boat" would probably be better linked to Vorpostenboot

That's all from me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing those, Parsecboy, assuming that the duplicate link you found was the second one to patrol boat. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the link to patrol boat was fine - it was the second light cruiser link - there's a script Sturm and I both use that highlights duplicate links with a red box (if you want to install it, it's here). Thanks for taking care of these little details - @Sturmvogel 66:, you owe him one ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Fortune (H70). 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/20091230223824/http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/bells/bells.asp to http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/bells/bells.asp

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) 00:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)