Talk:Hunt-class destroyer

Guns

@Nigel Ish: Er, I put four not six, you changed it to six? Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes - Type IVs had six guns, like the Type II - the different, longer, design of the Type IVs allowed the extra gun mounting to be carried along with torpedo tubes.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Ta Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

@BiscuitsBeforeBias: Greetings, liked your edits, do you have a source for them pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

All the sources are linked on the corresponding ships pages BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but you need to cite them here (not by copying the cites elsewhere but by using reliable sources). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Feel free or just revert to how it was before, I'm not fussed either way...

BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather you cited them, they're rather good. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@BiscuitsBeforeBias: Greetings again, a couple of your citations in the 'Modifications' section aren't working but I can't help because I don't know that system. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@BiscuitsBeforeBias: Greetings again, I think you're doing a marvellous job. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@BiscuitsBeforeBias: I can look up ship losses in Brown (1995). Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@BiscuitsBeforeBias: Do you intend to leave the details on this page uncited? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as the previous “23 lost” figure was uncited, if you click through the links, you’ll see each ship is correct & individually referenced on its own page. Feel free to duplicate any of this now that the full list of losses is confirmed, or just delete the table, I’m not bothered either way & won’t be editing this page again. BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@BiscuitsBeforeBias: I hope you change your mind, I think your edits are valuable, all they need is citations either by you, me or someone else. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic?

I perused the opening section and it's good, but then paragraph 4 happens and it takes an unexpected tangent. Para 3 discusses the nomenclature of the subject - fine - but para 4 then discusses the naming convention's subsequent history and the MCVs which continued it, going so far as to discuss material and technical aspects of the MCVs. This, of course, is of no relevance to discussion of the article's subject.

Should we have that paragraph there at all, or could it be deleted (as we do have a link for a disambiguation page at the top)? ~2026-16898-98 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Glaug-Eldare: I reverted the edit because a colon is the wrong punctuation. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It is factually not the wrong punctuation to introduce a list, but I see what the issue is. Thanks. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that you made a mistake and then tried to discuss it on my talk page, not the article talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are three more sources explaining how colons are used to introduce lists following a complete sentence: https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/colons/colons/, https://style.mla.org/colons-how-to-use-them/, and https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/colons

Glaug-Eldare (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Appealing to style gudes that describe usage is a dead end. There is no need to use a colon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Keith-264 In other words, you simply won't allow anybody to correct a grammatical error on an article that belongs to you. How about you demonstrate why you think a comma is correct? Glaug-Eldare (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I found out yesteray that I've thanked people for edits more than 8,000 times. I don't own articles and I keep an open mind about other peiple's edits. You would do well to to remain civil and stop inferring motive when you aren't qualified. You claim a grammatical error and I don't agree, that's all. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

AI tag

I have tagged the article as potentially containing AI text as a result of this investigation - Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-09-16 BiscuitsBeforeBias. The editor in question has extensively edited the article, and I have spotted at least one example where the sources they supply completely fails to back up what they claimed - the use of Winser to state that Hunts had a 2 pounder bow chaser added to counter E-boats. While the statement is correct, the source does not back this up (unsurprising as it is a book about the 1940 evacuations at Dunkirk etc). Everything that they added will have to be checked and sources verified. This may need a major rewrite.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a mess. Regarding the list of ships with bow chasers, it seems to have been directly copied from Lenton, although I've used the one from Campbell, author of the British chapter in Conway's. Friedman gives a different list, but I haven't checked it against English's book. The ships badly need to be put into a table where all the losses and transfers can be mentioned instead at the beginning of the article. They certainly don't deserve the prominence that they currently have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)