Talk:Condottieri-class cruiser

Content

Not sure why so much background detail has been completely removed, including some that's relevant to the concept and design of these ships. Folks at 137 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see that Panairjdde was pruning some redundant verbiage (ship history is better for ship articles, doesn't need to be all repeated here), but it does seem a little severe to me. Mention of the "competing" classes of other nations is totally appropriate here, in fact I consider it key content for these articles. Panairjdde? Stan 21:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you check Di Giussano class cruiser, you can see that I moved those informations to the appropriate page. The considerations on Le Fantasque influence and on the sinking of all the ships are completely true only for this class. --Panairjdde 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Might be worth adding something along the lines of "not actually a single class" in the lead para, the "sequence of five classes" didn't quite clue me in that the title is a bit of a misnomer... Stan 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but sources regard all these light cruisers as of the Condottieri class, differentiated as types, although there are distinct differences in profile. For example, the external link on the article does this. For this reason, the title seems justified and separate articles for each type could be unnecessary. But I'm only an amateur. BTW, could someone point me to a tutorial on setting up tables, then I can enter some of the characteristics for these ships. TTFN, on hols for a while. Folks at 137 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E4C4:DACA:5581:93B6 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The five separate Types of the 'Condottieri class'

If, by the end of 2022, nobody has figured out why separate articles for the five separate and easily-distinguishable types of cruiser forming this denoted 'class' are a good idea, then it's a sad case of affairs. This is just semantics at play. Five quite separate designs all being lumped into one article because the word 'class' is used in texts, which have all simply taken the word from the original Italian source.

Plenty of sources distinguish them into types, using that word instead of class, but that doesn't get away from the fact that the term 'type' in reference to these ships and the design of them, actually meets with the Wikipedia & dictionary definitions of a ship class.

Each type should clearly have its own article; it's not too much. These were major warships, not MAS boats.

(Conways All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 - still an authoritative, regularly-cited benchmark text, with the Italian section written by noted and frequently-cited naval historian John Roberts - clearly separates them in the manner that other named classes of cruiser are in both the Italian and other navies; all of which have their own separate Wikipedia articles. That is to say, each 'type' is listed as a 'class' (of the Condottieri type, interestingly) and has a separate class entry with tabular data, ships in class and potted technical discussion & history of class, in the same format as that of any class.)

Wikipedia just needs to be following that lead, as far as I can see. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E4C4:DACA:5581:93B6 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Further, a very useful tool for gauging this is an Italian blog, which is of significant help in researching the units and men of the Regia Marina, has this to say of the cruiser Muzio Attendolo: "Incrociatore leggero della classe Montecuccoli del tipo Condottieri ". Translates as "Light cruiser of the Montecuccoli class of the Condottieri type". So, even an Italian researcher rightly regards five separate designs as being five separate classes, but simply grouped under a thematic type umbrella.

http://conlapelleappesaaunchiodo.blogspot.com/2016/07/muzio-attendolo.html 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A275:2F3D:7328:51CF (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)