Talk:HMS Bristol (D23)

Bristol to be Scrapped?*
Is there any conclusive proof that Bristol will be colsing down in August, or is this just, as indicated, a rumour? If it is a rumour (and I have found no references to Bristol closing down on Google) then surely it has no place on Wikipedia. Martinp23 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is definetly being scrapped, i saw some papers referring to this onboard, equally the course instructors confirmed this. The Sir Galahad is currently near HMS victory, and is enormous - so something definetly to look forward to.
 * -matt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.54.206 (talk • contribs) 22:39 (UTC), 27 July 2006‎


 * OK Matt - thanks for confirming - it does look like it'll happen seeing as galahad has just been decommisioned. thanks  Martinp23  19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As of May 2023 Bristol remains berthed, decommissioned and slowly decaying. The MOD want her gone but it appears that the Friends Of Bristol have managed to get an injunction preventing disposal, whilst this rumbles on the various cadet forces that urgently need a replacement training venue are left without a viable option. 2A00:23C8:9BA4:E101:DDB:B104:D276:B9CE (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Replacement of Bristol
I've dine some more research into the replacement of Bristol with Sir Galahad, and it looks like it could be a long way in the future/never happening (from talking to people working on the ship). Therefore, I am going to remove the text about the ship being scrapped per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the claim was backed up by Verifiable sources, then it would be acceptable, but I'm afraid at this moment it is sheer speculation to say that Bristol will be replaced. Also, the notices on the walkways warning that they should not be used were because on normal maintenance procedures - now that they've had a service the signs say "Not to be used after August 2008". Note that most walkways of this type have a notice like that on them - so it is no indication of Bristol's future. Thanks M  a  rtinp23  16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

it would be a crime to have bristol repalaced i spent meny summers on her with my sea cadet unit (ts eastbourne) i had my frist time away from home on her my frist tast of sailing and power boating i also did my petty officer cadet course on her lert to shoot she is an asset to the navy and to all the cadet corse who use her LONG LIVE BRISTOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.148 (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Image of HMS Bristol/Type 82
Does anybody have a decent image of HMS Bristol to replace the one that is there are the moment? Whilst I am grateful to the contributor, it is a very grainy photo that does not do the ship much justice. Thanks Xtrememachineuk (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I might be able to get some, possibly... Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Type 82 destroyer into HMS Bristol (D23)
Type 82 destroyer should be merged into HMS Bristol (D23)

184.144.163.181 (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the two articles are duplications of one another, further, the service history of the ship belongs in the ship article, not the class article. As there is only one example of the class, the class article should be merged into the ship article. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current articles for Type 82 and the Bristol could be improved a lot; but the decision about whether to merge them should be made on the subject matter, and not on the weaknesses of the current articles.  The Type 82 project was a big project that went on for many years.  It was related to the parallel Escort Cruiser project, and the later Type 42 project.  It was be desirable to write this all up properly, explaining how and why requirements changed.  In an article just about the ship, much of this would be lost or deleted by editors on the grounds that it did not seem that relevant to the history of the ship that was actually produced.  An article on the Type 82, should have a sufficiently wide remit to cover the relationships between different projects.  Big defence projects are something people should want to be able to look up in an encyclopedia - so Wikipedia needs to have articles on the projects - even though in this case the project only produced one ship.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose. A similar situation can be seen at Admiral class battlecruiser and the sole ship produced to that design, HMS Hood (51). When there is only ever the intention to build one ship of a particular design, then there is no need for a separate article, but here I think there is plenty of scope for the designs and features of the proposed class, why they were chosen, and why ultimately the decision was made to cancel the other ships, what effect this had, etc. There should probably only be a brief summary of the service on the class page, and a brief summary of the design on the ship page. Benea (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To paraphrase Toddy and Benea, there is much at Type 82 destroyer that would be off-topic at HMS Bristol (D23), and visa versa.  Shem (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as has been said, the role and development and curtailment of the Type 82 project needs adequate coverage but to avoid dominating the Bristol article. Not that both articles couldn't use some love and attention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Because only one ship was built, there is no distinction between the Type 82 in general and the specific ship HMS Bristol. When a class contains more than one ship, a separate article is needed for the class as, otherwise, the description of the design and so on would have to be replicated in each ship's article; however, with a single ship, there is no such duplication. Conversely, there is massive duplication in the current set up because the HMS Bristol article would be lacking if it did not talk about the ship's design and intended use and an article about Type 82 destroyers would be lacking if it did not talk about what the ship was used for. Dricherby (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose. Personally I don't see a problem with having two different articles. As stated above, the 'Type 82' article does actually cover a lot of material that would likely eventually be lost and out of place if it were merged with the 'HMS Bristol' page. Perhaps rather than a merge, improvement to both articles would help the distinction more. Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  01:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Kent
"HMS Bristol was paid off in 1991 and refitted to again replace Kent...." This is the only mention of (HMS?) Kent in the article -- where, when, and why did Bristol previously replace Kent? 71.235.184.247 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The wording which you mention was inserted in in 2010.  You will see the wording at the time refers to the previous occasion when Bristol replaced Kent. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)