Talk:Fiji-class cruiser

last cruiser
"All ships of the Crown Colony-class were decommissioned from the Royal Navy by the late 1960s, though none of them were the last cruisers of the Royal Navy. That honour went to Blake, a modified Tiger-class cruiser, which was decommissioned in 1980, seemingly the last ever cruiser to be in the Royal Navy."

weren't the Invincible class Aircraft carriers originally designated "through deck cruisers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.221.149 (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Class Name?
All official sources (Navy List etc.) as well as authoritative secondary sources I can find (e.g. Raven and Roberts, Conway's, Jane's, Lenton, Moore's "Building for Victory" etc.) refer to this class as the FIJI CLASS. If there are official sources calling it the "Crown Colony Class" please cite them.Dfvj (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed the name of the article to "Fiji-class Cruiser" which is now in keeping with the standard name for this class of ships Dfvj (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Robert Jackson's Encyclopedia or warships specifically states "the 'Fiji' or 'Crown Colony' class (bolding in the book's text) ...". The move to Fiji class was likely correct but it would appear the term Crown Colony class was used. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC).


 * What source does Jackson (2006) cite for calling this class the "Crown Colony Class"? The earliest date I can find anyone calling them this name is the original version of this wikipedia article (dated 12 February 2004)‎ by an editor with the name "SoLando": there is no reference, and I have rather come to suspect (s)he just made it up. Given Jackson was published two years later, there is the possibility he got the name from the wikipedia article: Does he give a different source?  As mentioned above, all official primary and authoritative secondary sources I can find refer to these ships exclusively as the Fiji Class; while the "Colony Class" refers to the USN Tacoma Class frigates supplied under Lend Lease. Allowing such hoaxes to be perpetuated is a serious disservice to scholarship; if you can perhaps demonstrate it is not a hoax, i.e. by showing some authoritative source for the name re-dating 2004, then I will gladly accede to removing the caveat. BestDfvj (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dfvj, with respect, given your rationale outlined above the statement “despite there being no historical basis for this name” is the very definition of WP:Original research. We can have a debate about the inclusion of the alternate name Crown Colony class, but that editorialising needs to go.
 * I cannot say definitely the Jackson did not read Wikipedia before writing the book, but he is an author pretty broadly published in this area and given the book was put through an editorial process prior to publication I find it doubtful that Wikipedia is the source. It is the definition of a reliable secondary source, which is what we aim to cite here. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Like Dfvi my check of sources finds no mention of them being referred to as the Crown Colony class. Every RS calls them the Fiji class but Whiteley says also known as the Colony class (not Crown Colony). Jackson strikes me as a jobbing author who should not be relied on Lyndaship (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree if only one fairly broad-brush source makes the statement then it should be removed from the lead and possibly the article. As stated above, my objection is primarily to the added statement. Cavalryman (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

I am unsure if anyone has typed Crown Colony class cruiser into Google books (a luxury about to be denied us here in Australia) but several pre 2004 sources come up: Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Gordon Holman’s 1947 The King’s cruisers p 231
 * Naval Review of 1948 vol 36, p 65
 * C. J. Harris’s 1992 War at sea: South African maritime operations during World War II p 180
 * Chris Bishop’s 2002 The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II p 293
 * I don't deny that people call them the Crown Colony class, but the British Navy (who should have some say, after all), always seem to have called them the Fiji Class. I was unable to confirm your archival sources; how about the following compromise: "The class is also known unofficially as the Colony or Crown Colony class (although they should not be confused with the Colony Class frigates)."  Reasonable? Dfvj (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the phrasing, the reference to Colony-class is not really needed as the word "cruiser" is all over this article, and there is also a disambig at Colony class to pick up stragglers but it probably can't hurt. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we need to mention the Colony class frigate then how about we use Template:Distinguish? Cavalryman (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Yes, the mention of the Colony class frigates does need to be included explicitly: these frigates were the ships the RN called "Colony Class"; The RN called the cruisers which are the subject of this article the "Fiji Class". A disambiguation link would give the unofficial name of the cruiser class a credibility not merited by its provenance.
 * I was unable to verify any of the sources you allege used the name "Crown Colony Class" prior to 2004: results of Google searches by themselves do not constitute a reliable source (due to indifferent standards in OCR and digitizing): you must go to the original text.
 * As regards you remarks about what constitutes a reliable secondary sources: these are books or other sources which cite the original archival sources for the information they are presenting. I don't know the work by Jackson (2006) you cite, but if he or she does not give such citations, it does not fall in this category. There are a lot of books which are produced by cutting-and-pasting from Wikipedia without checking original sources for accuracy. Works which based on official archives are, for example: Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946 by Roger Chesneau (ed.) (1979); British Cruisers of World War Two by Alan Raven and John Roberts (1980); Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development, 1923-1945 by D. K. Brown (2006); British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After by Norman Friedman (2010). They all consistently call these ships the "Fiji Class", as do contemporary reference books like Jane's Fighting Ships (which while not always based on officially supplied information, nevertheless present the contemporaneous informed wisdom on naval affairs, and can be viewed as reasonably reliable primary sources).
 * As regards your comments regarding original research: it is you who insists on the inclusion of the alternate name for this class, the provenance of which you are unable to validate adequately. There is overwhelming evidence already mentioned that the RN called these ships the Fiji Class: that is the name they should bear historically. Dfvj (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That the "the RN called these ships the Fiji Class" is not in dispute, what is being said is that some refer to them as "Crown colony" and we allow for that by mentioning it (once). As to verification, as was able to see in the digitised image of one of those refs "Crown colony" referring to HMS Uganda GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unable to access the Naval Review page: can you provide the full citation? I also found the American Office of Naval Intelligence guide to British warships dated December 1944 referring to them as the "Colony Class".  The principle point of this dispute is that this class has, in recent years, come to be generally and principally referred to as the "Crown Colony Class", due (one suspects) to a neologism (maybe it even constitutes a hoax, though there are contemporary historical sources for the alternative names, so that may too harsh a judgement) introduced by a previous Wikipedia editor. Echoes of this remain in this article: e.g. in the table of ships it has a "namesake" column with "(Crown) Colony of" or "Colony and Protectorate" or some such prefixing every name (If I remember correctly it used to read "Crown Colony of" for every entry, even though that simply wasn't true: Newfoundland was a Dominion for example). No other article regarding warships that I'm aware has such a column in the appropriate table; the subtext of including such a column is fairly obvious I think: someone was trying to convince us that his/her renaming of the class was justified. I do think it is beholden to us to reverse this, no? Wikipedia should not be altering historical perception, even in relatively benign issues like this.Dfvj (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute here, you asked the question about sources for a claim in the article and multiple sources have been provided (some contemporary) verifying the claim. Cavalryman (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
 * I am glad to see you are not disputing things. I have re-written the last sentence of the initial paragraph, including references to contemporary sources for the unofficial names: "Colony" Class (referenced in the ONI manual from 1944) and the Crown Colony Class (with the 1948 reference you found and GraemeLeggett has confirmed: I couldn't open the Naval Review for some reason; it used to be on-line, but now its behind a paywall); I have also added a footnote pointing out the historical inconsistency of the "Crown Colony" name, (which is manifest from the "namesake" column in the class table, but bears pointing out).Dfvj (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see you are now seeking a dispute, please review WP:BRD, if you are reverted it is much better to discuss than to edit war. Cavalryman (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC).


 * I had to revert some changes to the various ship articles related to the name because it lost navboxes, added non-existent categories and so forth. Going forward:
 * 1) Where {{Sclass2-|Crown colony|... is used, the change needs to use {{sclass|Fiji|... to get the correct formatting
 * 2) Optionally (because it's only visible to editors) move template {{tl|Crown Colony class cruiser}} over {{tl|Fiji class cruiser}}, otherwise delete the latter.
 * 3) If categories use Crown Colony class cruiser are going to be Fiji class cruiser, then they need to be created properly or the one moved to the other (redirects don't function in category space)
 * renames or moves may need some admin help to achieve cleanly. Eg through Categories for discussion GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Further to my last, here on Wikipedia we don’t provide sources to disprove WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, which you statements of unofficial names and the notes are. Provide sources that corroborate your additions or they will be removed, sources have been provided to establish both alternate names have been used. And finally, please review the WP:MOS and review your placement of full stops. Cavalryman (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Your determination to perpetuate the wrong name for this class of ships is puzzling and indeed antithetical to the entire spirit of scholarship: you can't rename some historical artifact on a whim. (a) the Royal Navy, who designed, built and operated these ships called them the FIJI Class. Neither the ONI nor the Naval Review are officially associated with the Royal Navy; thus the non-RN names are thus "unofficial": what's the problem (b) putting "Colony Class" before "Crown Colony Class": the former appears first in the historical record (1944 vs. 1948); again, what's the problem? (c) The footnote pointing out the error in calling these ships the "Crown Colony Class", simply because some of them were not named after Crown Colonies: Do you dispute this fact? The evidence is right there in the article. How can it not be relevant?Dfvj (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}You have not addressed the point; unless you can produce a source that states the alternate names were never used in the RN, the use of term unofficial is SYNTH. That the alternate class names have been used has been demonstrated and is what is stated, it needs no expansion. Further, unless you can reliably cite the claim that “Crown Colony” causes confusion, it is OR. Do you have such sources? Cavalryman (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Further, reviewing a number of editions of the Royal Navy’s Navy News I have found numerous mentions of both “Crown Colony class” and “Colony class” cruisers, I am not going bother listing all but the earliest was in the September 1957 edition (p 2) and the most recent that I have access to is December 2012 edition (p 40). Whilst hardly the authoritive voice of the RN, it demonstrates that since the 50’s both names have been used to describe the class within the Royal Navy. Interestingly, I can only find one reference to the “Fiji class” in the Navy News. Cavalryman (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Here is a newspaper article from Singapore in August 1937, which announces a new "Colony" class of ships. Here is a later article from 1950, which gives the name without quotation marks. I am sure I have seen the name "colony class" used in many other places; I hadn't noted them down at the time as I didn't expect a dispute to arise. One point that editors should note is that the Royal Navy sometimes changed class names during the design and construction phase. For example, the "Town Class" of light cruisers built before the second world war were first designated during the design stage as the "M-class," then the "Minotaur-class," before settling on "Town class" once the ship names started to be allocated. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Australian newspapers in March 1938 were all declaring the proposed ships to be the "Colonial class." However, I can't find any examples of that name being used after that month. Later articles from 1944 and 1950 use Colony class. The 1950 article suggests a Royal Navy Vice Admiral referred to one of the ships as "Colony class" but it isn't in a quote, so the journalist may have paraphrased.https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/22737754] From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it seems to be clear, that sometimes some people referred to them as other than "Fiji" class. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Different machinery for the Ceylon group
Does anyone have any sources that support the different machinery, speed and displacement for the Ceylon sub-class? Everything I can find state they’re the same, just different armament. Cavalryman (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC).