Talk:HMS Plymouth (F126)

Untitled
That infobox is vastly too large, and both overwhelms the article and makes it look really ugly. Do we really need it?. Would it not be better to convert much of the minutiae it contains (every radar set the ship has ever had, for example) into a more textual form?. Comments?. -- Waterstones 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As an experiment, I've moved the general characteristics section of the infobox to its own article section. It (IMHO) makes the article read a lot better. It is beginning to look more like an encyclopedia article, and a bit less like a database report. But then I've never really had much interest in radar sets. -- Waterstones 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've undone it. It may not be interesting to you, but the convention is to use infoboxes to carry that information, so that those who are interested have it to hand, and those that aren't don't have to wade through it in the main body of the article. Hope that explains why we do this. Benea 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Plymouth (F126). 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 tag to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11802.aspHMS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014014539/http://www.hmsplymouth.co.uk/history.html to http://www.hmsplymouth.co.uk/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Book with a rather odd title
IP editor 95.150.227.149 tried to add a book with a rather odd title to the bottom of the article 19:07, 28 December 2017, and this was reverted by another editor.

Though the IP editor put the book reference in the wrong place (after categories), it is a sensible addition to the bibliography. However it is self-published and therefore under Wikipedia rules does not count as a "reliable source". If you read the British version of Amazon, you will see many customer reviews. I have heard of the book before, but have not read it.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Book review:
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)