Talk:Nilgiri-class frigate (2019)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Asian / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force India Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in March 2012. Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

This article has been automatically assessed for WP:SHIPS as stub-class because there is a stub template on the article page. Haus^Talk 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/8254/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone please confirm if this [1] is correct or not. regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Project 17A-class frigate. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131152249/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1650094.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1650094.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131152249/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1650094.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1650094.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project 17A-class frigate. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218093318/http://www.forceindia.net/NovFeatureReport7.aspx to http://www.forceindia.net/NovFeatureReport7.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gazoth, thanks for the latest updates on the specifications of the ship. I do have a concern on the main gun of the ship. I was the one who added the 127mm main gun from OTO Melara based on the reference here ([2]). This is further cemented indirectly by the the another release recently ([3]) which states thirteen 127mm main gun from BAE are being procured. Now the second source does not clearly state that are being procured for Project 17A but that seems to be the case since only 4 Visakhapatnam-class destroyer are being built. But the recent Janes source ([4]) states that the gun is going to be 76mm from OTO Melara. This is essentially based on the specifications MDL had released during the recent DEFEXPO. This can be further confirmed by photos of the ship specifications at the MDL booth (obviously they are WP:SPS and not permissible). My analysis of the situation is that the ship will carry a 127mm gun based on the recent clearance from the DAC. MDL had to choose a gun upfront since they were not sure which one to choose and thus went ahead with the 76mm gun during the Expo. Obviously all of this is WP:OR. I agree with your current decision of keeping the 127mm gun in the infobox. This is more to get a discussion going since we have conflicting sources. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80: I don't think that it is much of a concern as both the gun choices that we currently have in reliable sources, be it Oto Melara 127 mm or 76 mm, constitute outdated information anyway. When we do get a reliable source for choice of BAE Mk 45 as the main gun, the article can be updated to reflect it. —Gazoth (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gazoth Fair enough. Let's leave the 127mm up there for now. We can update it once we have WP:RS for BAE Mk 45. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The BAE Mk 45 gun had indeed been selected for Nilgiri class and Vishakapatnam class , however, plans have since changed

The BAE Mk 45 has been canceled on basis of cost, and a Make in India 76 mm gun is to be used until a larger plan for 127 mm guns is identified.^[1]

Speculatively, it might be the below gun ; however no specific news on the use of this gun for the Nilgiri class and Vishakapatnam class and thus it would be unjustified to reference it.^[2]

I would recommend going with an unlisted make of 76 mm gun for now in the info box

Barath s (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just state what we know so far? (and is sourced) In the infobox, put "see Design section", then in the design section, add the info we have so far; that initially a 76mm gun was part of the design, that was later changed to a 127mm gun, but that may not be the case anymore and a final decision has not yet been made. The class is new, so it's not out of the ordinary to include info about varying possibilities and pending decisions, as long as it's sourced of course. (jmho) - wolf 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this edit [5] due to the following reasons,

1. Frigate under construction is not damaged
2. Frigate construction is not affected by the incident (stated in the content itself)
3. Repairing or replacing a crane in the shipyard is irrelevant information on this article about P-17A frigate, which could be added to the shipbuilder's article page
4. WP:NOTNP —FoxtAl (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:FoxtAl, I understand that you have reverted my contributions on the Nilgiri-class frigate (2019), most specifically its "2017 accident" sub-section. I find your reasons for the removal of the content to be partially objectionable for the following reasons -

• I specifically mentioned that the vessels under construction are not damaged.
• The accident imparted a tremendous delay to the class' construction timeline, and is therefore, a notable part of the class' history. I also mentioned the steps that the shipyard took to circumvent the problem. The accident was related to the class, and also imparted specific consequences on its construction - which merits attention on a Wiki page.

I agree to the fact that the replacement of the crane may not be directly related to the class' construction, and I will add it to shipyard's Wiki page.

Thank you for your suggestion.

1. WP:NOTNP —Kishore Editing (User talk:Kishore Editing) 8:57, 6 May 2022 (ITC)

Recently, the Kishore Editing has been making many uncalled for and irrelevant edits specially in this page. Not only this, he keeps on re-reverting the changes. An unnecessary section of comparison has been made with Shivalik. These are different ships of different time-frame, of course there's going to be plethora of changes which doesn't needs to be mentioned since a user can digest these changes looking at the specification in each page.

So on the topic of VLS

P-17A frigates utilize vertical launching system (VLS) ...

Shivaliks has VLS for Brahmos, Klub and Barak-1. I am not sure why he is adamant on suggesting that Shivalik doesn't have VLS for launching missiles. Please do not redo the mistakes again and again. I have no issues with valid points being made but adding inane topics and justifying them to be true is not right. Just because a page has mentioned something wrong doesn't mean we have to be meek spectator, use commons sense before editing rather than getting stuck at a single topic. Shashpant (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)![reply]

I have added the launch of Mahendragiri. But in the table, Mahendragiri went in the middle. It was the 7th and last ship launched on 1 September 2023. I could not do the table. Request editors to correct the mistake. I could not also revert my edit. Davidindia Davidindia (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]