Talk:Australian light destroyer project

Model image: in? out? shake it all about?
With the back-and-forth over File:DDL Kokoda 01.jpg. I think we need to take a pause and try to come to some consensus over the image's fate. This image depicts a remote control model based on the DDL Project design, but with weapons from ships currently in RAN service.

From what I can understand, this is how we've got here
 * The image was added by during these edits, stating the the model was of a DDL "as if in service 2000-2005".
 * removed the image here, with the edit summary "the words "as if in service 2000-2005" make it OR in my view" (by OR, I assume referring to the Wikipedia policy No original research).
 * 211.30.254.247 reverted this edit, then expanded the caption to state that the weapons and electronics displayed on the model were taken from RAN warships serving in that period.
 * I,, removed the claims regarding the weapons and electronics from the caption, as I felt that as no reliable sources describe what a DDL in service during the early 2000s would look like, the claim that "this is what one would look like" was not appropriate for the article.
 * 211.30.254.247 rewrote the caption, rephrasing the removed material.

I'm in two minds about this image. On one hand, I'm not sure what the image adds to the article in the way of encyclopedic value. It is one person's interpretation of what the DDL may have looked like (although "based on the building plans", those plans rapidly changed during the design of the ship, and were never put into use), if if was fitted with the weapons and systems that person thought it may have carried at a later point in life (which is pure speculation on their part). On the other hand, as a ship that never passed the design stage, there are very few possible images that could be used in the article...most of the ones currently there are of ships the DDL would have replaced, or was itself replaced by when the project flopped. On the third hand, I hate edit warring, and think we've hit the "Discuss" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I'm inviting interested parties to share their thoughts. -- saberwyn 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was referring to the 'no original research' policy there (I need to remember to link that in edit summaries...). I just feel that an interpretation of the ship like that necessarily falls into the realm of guesswork and OR, but you're right in that there aren't a lot of images that can fit in this article. I wouldn't object to image if it doesn't say "... as the ship would have looked in 2000–2005". — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) The most important question here is whether the model is custom built entirely, or modified from an existing kit. If it's the latter, it's definitely copyrighted by the producer, no matter what the builder says or does (since the modified model would be a derivative work, thus still in copyright). I believe OR isn't relevant here; there are plenty of user-created images that show the artist's interpretation. For instance, Anynobody has created many images of aircraft incidents (such as this one or this one) that are based only on 3-d models and reports of the accidents. This is his interpretation of the Toba catastrophe, which occurred around 70,000 years ago. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Parsec, I think the OR issue would still exist since the IP keeps claiming that this is what the DDLs would look like in 2000-2005 after a modernization that was never even thought of when these ships were proposed. That is pure Original Research and the continued POV pushing to get this included is quickly becoming disruptive. -MBK004 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as it's made clear that it is an "artist's interpretation," I think we'd be ok with the image on policy grounds (as long as my point above is addressed). Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the large scale of the model, the paucity of Australian warship models (at least in my personal experience in smaller scales), and the fact that hull was never laid (and as far as I know, the design was never finalised), I would think it very unlikely that this is anything other than scratch-built. -- saberwyn 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the image should be removed - the article already has an artist's impression of the ship from when it was proposed, and the model is speculative. As the design was never finalised, there's no way of saying for sure what they would have looked like had they been built, and as they were never built no upgrades were ever proposed in any form. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And now, an IP user from the same range has changed the caption to state that this model is based on the "official Navy plans". I have left the claim in (with a citation needed and a dubious tag, the latter linking here), and invited the IP user to comment here.

In regards to my personal stance, I am now leaning towards the image's removal from the article on the grounds that the image is very speculative, and the caption is making fairly significant claims (that this is the official design, and that this is how they would have been equipped if in service today) that have not been demonstrated through the use of sources. -- saberwyn 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the image. As I note above, the article has a good image of one of the final versions of the design and the model appears to be speculative. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Claims from recent edition of The Navy - some contradiction, and a point possibly worth adding
Hi all. The most recent edition of The Navy (the magazine of the Navy League of Australia) has an article on the concept of flexible multi-role warships. The DDL rates a passing mention, in which the author claims that common hulls but different roles/outfits were considered, that the RN and RAN collaborated at one stage on a possible design, that Australia left the joint project in November 1968 (for reasons unspecified) and RAN efforts were canned in 1973, and the British input into the joint project evolved into the Type 21 frigate. The first parts are consistent with what we've got, but Australia leaving the project contradicts the article (which says the Brits upped sticks following the Aussie's insistence on American weapons), and the Type 21 link is not mentioned but would possibly be worth a line. The paragraph has a footnote referencing an article in Navy Quarterly (a Department of the Navy publication).

I leave it to those with a better understanding of the subject to decide if any of this should be incorporated into the article, or if the footnote is worth pursuing as a potential source. Citations follow. -- saberwyn 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Article: (Specific claims are made on page 6)
 * Footnote:


 * Thanks for spotting this - I'll find a copy and check it out. John Jeremy is certainly well qualified and experienced, and is the author of two of the current references in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The DDL-specific content probably isn't worth purchasing the whole magazine. If you send me an email, I'll scan the article for you. -- saberwyn 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Australian light destroyer project. 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/20110321020159/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Navy_News-August-31-1973.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Navy_News-August-31-1973.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)