Talk:Type 26 frigate

Type 26

Moved to from my tp

The information that been removed is not relevant to the type 26 which the page is about but to the subclasses which have there own Wikipedia pages either the information needs to be removed about the subclasses or subclass pages merged with the type 26 page. please look at Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate in how subclasses are handled there as in the Adelaide-class, Santa María-class, Cheng Kung-class and G-class Fredbasing (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Mark83 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So to the editors who disagree and advocated "take it to the talk page" - can we discuss this? Mark83 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

By definition, this article is about the Type 26 frigate - which is not what Australia or Canada do or will call it. This article should be about the Royal Navy vessel, and summarise the fact that the BAE design is being used for other classes. The fact that the infobox runs the entire length of the article is strange and unnecessary for the reason I describe. Convenient for military nerds like me? Maybe. Relevant for the average reader? No. Confusing for the average reader? Likely. Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think the the editors opposing this user disagreed with the wholesale gutting of content and the edit-warring that followed. And it's only now they've come to the talk page, after being faced with a block. I wasn't crazy about the socking, nor the cherry-picking of articles that suit the deletions. (But, moving on...) In answer to your question, sure; if you want to write a comprehensive summary about non-RN sub-types, and compare and contrast among all the sub-types, go for it. You usually do good work and I'm it would be no different here. Meanwhile, we'll see how much "fred" further contributes to this discussion, or what adsistance they offer with any copyediting. - wolf 22:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, there seems to be a lot of context that I wasn't aware of, apologies, I wasn't aware. And thank you for explaining. Edit warring is not acceptable of course. Moving to the content issue itself, the disagreement seems to be just on the infobox though? It's logical to me that the infobox should be for the Type 26 alone. The links to the Australian and Canadian subclasses are clear. What are your thoughts on this? Mark83 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Did someone mention my name? I've just finished reading this article and I find it quite informative. I have no issues as this stands now, especially with the "partnership" section for the Canadian and Australian navies.

The Royal Canadian Navy's article on this ship is found here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Canadian_Surface_Combatant

The Royal Australian Navy's arcticle is found here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate

As you can see, the title of the articles from these two commonwealth nations does not mention Type 26; which, would make it difficult for someone to search on Wikipedia by type and nation alone. The main Type 26 Royal Navy page is the ideal location to mention the partners in this heavy frigate's development supported by some information and links to their own pages.

As is, I think it's just fine.

Please be aware of the CANZUK factor that has been influencing these three, and New Zealand, decisions lately. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/CANZUK

TorontoFred, DQTSO, 3rd CFTSA, Canadian Forces, retired. Torontofred (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Torontofred:, the above mention of a "fred" was in regards to Fredbasing, that's not your account as well, is it? - wolf 19:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I have only one account and that is TorontoFred. Torontofred (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

I've added File:Type 26 frigate.jpg to the infobox. It seems to be an official artist's rendering by the MoD, which is also used for several other articles about the class.

It seems that a copyrighted but arguably fair use image was used prior to 26 November 2022, when it was replaced by an image of dubious origin, which was subsequently removed by bot user CommonsDelinker without replacement.

I guess I felt the need to check and to write this entry as it seems unusual to be adding a 30 month-old image to an otherwise updated article like this. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Aegis

How does this article not contain a single mention of the fact that at least 6 members of the class (if not many more) will have the Aegis Combat System? 45.26.61.142 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Hunter class will have an Aegis combat management computer but wont use an Aegis radar instead using an Australian indigenous design as well as a SAAB 9LV tactical interface, as ‘Aegis’ is a whole package system of integrated weapon, radar and tactical management its not a real Aegis system. WatcherZero (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Australian involvement

I believe that in the article in the places where it says that Australia is operating or will operate it needs to be removed. There is already an article for Australia's Hunter-class frigate and it is based on the type 26 but is customised. It is misleading to say that Australia will operate this exact ship model. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Hunter-class frigate page quite clearly says "In June 2018, the BAE Systems Type 26 frigate was selected as the winner.". Therefore the Australian Hunter-class frigate is a Type 26 frigate. Even though it may be a sub-variant Markcr (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing the page without reading the references

There are contributors clearly editing the page without reading references for this article. Removing references that they consider "outdated" but that provide information on expected ship construction timeline. If contributors are going to contribute, or edit the article, please make sure to read the reference in full before you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markcr (talk • contribs) 10:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)