Talk:Constellation-class frigate

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed Government Furnished Equipment for FFG(X).png

Move to Constellation-class frigate ?
Now that the first ship has been named USS Constellation (FFG-62), should the article be moved to Constellation-class frigate? noclador (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think eventually this move should occur, particularly since the U.S. Navy press release explicitly says "As the first in her class, these ships will now be known as the Constellation Class frigates...". However, "FFG(X)" is still, by far, the most commonly encountered name for this class of ships, although I anticipate this will change pretty quickly. If this move goes forward I recommend that a brief mention of the "FFG(X)" name still appear in the lead paragraph with perhaps a mention of the "FFG(X)" program name in an early section, perhaps the "Development" section. —RP88 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Most editors commenting in this discussion find the arguments in support to be more persuasive, as opposed to keeping the article and possibly splitting  (t · c)  buidhe  23:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

FFG(X) → Constellation-class frigate – This class has officially been named and I don't see any compelling reason to delay this move. Since a user above was at least hesitant about an immediate move, I have invoked the discussion process rather than asking for a technical move request. Safiel (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BilCat (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Constellation is the actual new ship class for the new FFG(X) frigates. Neovu79 (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support  - Please move. Class will be in service fo4 40+ years and it will always be referred to as Constellation-class. noclador (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking note of 's comment to split the article into an "FFG(X) selection process" article and an "Constellation-class" article, I have changed my mind as this is a better solution then a general move to Constellation-class frigate; as that article will grow over time and at some point the "FFG(X) selection process" section would be split out into its own article anyway. noclador (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Navy and its contractors will re-designate the FFG(X) project to the Constellation-class, so keeping two articles that will have the exact same information seems redundant. Neovu79 (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as is, the article covers the DDG(X) competition - an article covering the design selected would be very different and would be better as a separate article, with this article covering the competition, and pointing to all of the competitors.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I can understand wanted to preserve the integrity of the FFG(X) article, it does not correlate to the process that happened with the DD(X), SSN(X) and CVN(X) articles that were re-directed to the ship classes when the lead ship was designated. This move would be the natural progression of the project page. Everything that you and suggested as well as the rest of the planning, selection process, bidding, procuring, and congressional overcite can easily be integrated into the Constellation-class frigate article page as the stand alone USS Constellation (FFG-62) will be the article for the ship itself. This was the exact same process that was done for the above-mentioned ship projects. What makes the FFG(X) any different from the SSN(X) and the CVN(X)? Neovu79 (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The other examples aren't competitions like FFG(X) was - as an opposing example, we still have articles at Advanced Tactical Fighter, Joint Strike Fighter program or Light Helicopter Experimental after the relevant competitions have been decided.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely correct. The DD(X) was a competition in design as part of the SC-21 program, but the Navy decided on an tumbler design early on. The the LCS was also a competition. The difference for the LCS was that they went with 2 designs instead of one. Also aircraft are different because they actually construct working prototypes of the aircraft. They don't do that for large warships. Neovu79 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first ship of a class is often like a prototype. This seems to be more due to ironing out the manufacturing than issues with the ship design.  But the testing of competing ship prototypes would usually be too costly. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point, which is why something like the Joint Strike Fighter program is not really a valid argument in my view. Neovu79 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I said below, when I first made this suggestion, and I still believe, that the competition details will eventually be edited out of the class article by editors who come after us. Our job as WP is not just to cover naval ship classes; of more political importance is the twists and turns of the military-industrial complex. That's why all competitions, not just the appalling KC-135 replacement program, deserve their own articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a little more time to think about your argument, but I've come to the conclusion that the end-result doesn't justify the means. There are code designations for new designs for various projects all the time, especially in the military. There is virtually no variations on what the outcome of the FFG(X) project program is going to be. It is not going to spawn different classes of frigates for the Navy. It isn't going to be a brand new type of warship like the Littoral combat ship, as frigates have been around since the 17th century. Neovu79 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your message, . Just to be clear, my views remain unchanged. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most competitions are notable, but they don't always "deserve" separate coverage, even with aircraft. With aircraft, the deciding factor is generally whether or not such information will occupy a large portion of the contest winner's type article. Aircraft competition articles are a relatively new concept on Wikipedia, and are partially a product of "Recentism", as most competitions from before Wikipedia's advent just didn't get all that much coverage. The major difference between aircraft and ship coverage on Wikipedia is that individual aircraft don't generally get their own articles separate from the type article, while individual ships generally do. For example, we'll never have articles on each of the 6,000 F-16s produced, while even two-ship classes have separate articles, as with the QE-class carriers. BilCat (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ships are usually not mass-produced; in the case of warships, usually less than 25 are ever made of one class, although there are a hand full of classes like Arleigh Burke-class and the Oliver Hazard Perry-class that have significantly more. While there are plenty of aircraft in the world that have their own name, like ships do, the vast majority of individual aircraft do not have the historical significance to have it's own, dedicated article, i.e. the Enola Gay and the Bockscar. Neovu79 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Muévalo ahora; es el nombre. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nigel Ish. Suggest copying over key sections to new article Constellation-class frigate, so that this article remains detailing what happened during the FFG(X) design competition. Otherwise the design competition history will eventually be edited out of the class article. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a major, long-running competition as such, and won't likely result in multiple ship classes as with the LCS competition. If at some point the article becomes overlong, and the competition information is removed, then a case can be made at that time for splitting out that information. If it's removed over the course of time while the article is not very long, simply restore it. BilCat (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it would be edited out, ; look at the examples I provided below. Any properly developed class article should have a background and/or design section that covers exactly this sort of material. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support If the first ship is to be named Constellation then it seems imperative that the class would be the Constellation-Class, and this page ought to reflect that. Wandavianempire (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Named by current US Navy Secretary. No other opposing name. BlueD954 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, and beat this old speculative future topic back into the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Nigel Ish, Buckshot06: Keep FFG(X), copy pertinent sections to new Constellation-class frigate article. sbb (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * changed to Support: BilCat's and Neovu79's comments re: aircraft competition analogy swayed me. sbb (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - there's no reason to retain a separate FFG(X) article, the program was the development work that produced the class; look at any thoroughly-developed ship class article, and it'll have a design/background section that covers exactly the sort of material this article already does. Look, for example, at Brandenburg-class battleship, Yamato-class battleship, L 20e α-class battleship, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Per Parsecboy's comments. I originally intended to close this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and even relisted it for further discussion. However, there are several points that need to be addressed, and I felt I couldn't close the discussion without "supervoting". Nigel Ish brought up the aircraft competition articles as an example in support of a split. Since I am on of the editors involved in creating or maintaining most of those articles, I decided I'd rather give my perspective on those articles, which makes me involved. I will elaborate above where relevant. BilCat (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per BilCat's comments and others supporting. This article is currently about the class (not a dev program) and should be named accordingly. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Planned" data is now unparseable
I am confused by the present contents of the "Planned" part of the infobox. It reads, sans citations: "20 7 by 2027 as 30 March 2022" -- should this be "20 in all – 7 by 2027" or merely "20" to keep it simple. DulcetTone (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the jumbled/poorly written extra details and left it as "20", with a ref, as that is the total number the Navy wants. That is what that parameter is for, any additional info about what number of ships is funded or not, or for which years, can/should be added to the body of the article. - w o lf  19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)