Talk:Powerful-class cruiser

What a mess
What an astonishing mess this article (and particularly the tables) are. I have moved data that belongs to the individual ships to where they belong in the ship articles, but retained the cost comparison and the comparative performance table. If the BNA revised it's costs downwards in 1906 then presumably they had reason to do so and we should accept those costs - but I retained the note.--Geronimo20 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason for your criticism is that the article contains astonishingly little text. However if you want delete something, why not delete all the paragraphs that lack citations - only that would only leave the bits you deleted.

It is useful for articles to have standardised tables on build programmes for ship classes. It is also useful to have trials data for the classes, to enable people to compare designs. As for Brassey's revision of all their cost data for British warships - it is useful to have both sets of data - the reason being that for some ships only the earlier data is available. It is not a question of accepting or not accepting the data - they evidently used different rules for what costs were included and what not included, and we have no idea what the difference in the counting rules.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)