View source for Talk:Cruiser

{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Ships}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Maritime-task-force=yes|Weaponry-task-force = yes|WWI-task-force = yes|WWII-task-force = yes|Cold-War = yes }}
{{WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA|category=expand}}
}}
{{translated page|pl|Krążownik rakietowy|version=|small=no|insertversion=|section=}}

== The US Navy's "cruiser gap" ==
There is an interesting difference in the comparison between U.S. and U.K. versions of English.

In this section, the writer refers to Farragut-class vessels as "frigates". The designator for the class "DL" or "DLG" labels these as Destroyer Leaders, the purpose of which was to act as squadron flagship for a deployed destroyer squadron. In that they were built slightly larger, they had staff accommodations. Even the Royal Navy in WWII had vessels in a class designed specifically to act in this capacity. Smaller vessels (in particular DE and DEG) were Destroyer Escorts, designed with convoy escort duty in mind (and were only slightly larger than most WWII "frigates" (PF)). The larger DLG's were better equipped for Anti-aircraft Warfare (AAW), so were naturals for re-designation to CG/CGN (especially the nuclear vessels, who could keep up with the CV). The smaller DL/DLG vessels had lesser AAW weaponry and were really just destroyers. The MISSION determines the classification, not size. The Ticonderogas were designed, from the keel up, as cruisers. Their size was determined by the limitations of the Aegis radar deployment, and designation by the retirement of other older vessels. The Kidd-class destroyers (destined for Iran before the coup) were the only odd ducks hard to really classify - they were Spruance-class hulls with double launchers like the DLG's (that were re-designated as CG's). Which brings us to the Spruance-class Destroyers (DD). They were as large as many WWII cruisers, but were DD because of the better Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) equipment installed.

I, also, find it interesting that the only two references quoted for this page are written by Brits. The portion of this section dealing with U.S. motives and reasons have not been attributed to any U.S. source. --CDR [[User:Tom Mischke|Tom Mischke]] USN(Ret.) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Before the 1975 redesignation certain classes of vessels were designated frigates and designated DL, DLG, and DLGN. It proved to be a bad idea as no other Navy followed suit with the designation. In 1975 the frigates were redesignated as destroyers or cruisers. Examples: The DLG-6 class "Coontz class" were redesignated the DDG-37 class. The DLG-16 "Leahy class" were redesignated guided missile cruisers, CG-16 class.[[User:Two way time|Two way time]] ([[User talk:Two way time|talk]]) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


:The section about the US Navy reclassification ist IMO completly irrelevant here, the article is explaining Cruisers in general, not US Navy naming system. How about removing the section and just add a link to the relevant article?  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Supersymetrie|Supersymetrie]] ([[User talk:Supersymetrie|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Supersymetrie|contribs]]) 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== difference between cruiser and battlecruiser ==
Please clarify the difference between [[cruiser]] and [[battlecruiser]], to help translation from foreign languages. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:What exactly is unclear about the battlecruiser section already in this article? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 03:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:: OK let me give you an example. An online Russian-English dictionary I have translates "линейный корабль" and "бронено�?ец" as [[battleship]]. I'd rather want to have different words for them. The back conversion gives only the first version. Fortunately, "battlecruiser" and "линейный крей�?ер" match. What I want is a set of simple rules how to tell which ship is which, similar to [[Wikipedia:language recognition chart]]. I have already met cases of inconsistency on 'net as to types of [[Imperial Russia]]n ships when I was double-checking wikipedia updates on the topic. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 04:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::: I suppose you could say that their knack of exploding helped distinguish battlecruisers from other types of warship :-D. But seriously, compare two Royal Navy classes: [[Town class cruiser (1910)]] and [[HMS Indefatigable (1909)]]. Battlecruisers were much, much larger than cruisers; they had bigger guns, almost comparable speed (i'm not sure how their armour compared). Battlecruisers dispensed with much of their armour to give them an advantage in speed compared to early [[dreadnought]] battleships, but they were pretty much similar in every other aspect. I'm not sure if that was the answer you were looking for, so sorry if it isn't! Take care. If I got anything wrong with the analogy, I'm sure Stan will correct me :-) [[User:SoLando|SoLando]] ([[User talk:SoLando|Talk]]) 04:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: I pondered this some more since last writing, and oversimplified down to "armed like battleships, armored like cruisers". :-) We have a lot of verbiage on the subject in WP because battlecruisers have always been hard to classify. But the question of translation is rather different, and I can imagine random dictionaries not getting it right. What I would suggest is to find a Russian-language work on naval matters by a respectable authority, and see what word(s) are used to describe the vessels that are here called "battlecruisers", for instance anything in [[:Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy ]]. I'm sure that Russian naval experts have a term they've agreed upon, as well as which ships they categorize that way - better to rely on them than on us amateurs. :-) [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 12:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Try this explaination. Cruiser were limited to ships with largest guns of 8 inch size. This applies to the United States Navy, for the World War II era ships. Unsure how the other Navies were with this distinct.  See [[Heavy_cruiser]] and [[Washington_Treaty_for_the_Limitation_of_Naval_Armaments]]. Note per the Washington Naval Treaty alos limited to a 10,000 tons standard displacement. [[Special:Contributions/74.214.49.112|74.214.49.112]] ([[User talk:74.214.49.112|talk]]) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

:::The ''cruiser'' was designed for long distance ''cruising'', i.e., steaming for long periods so that it could reach trouble spots over the worldwide empires of the countries that originated them. The ''battleship cruiser'' (battlecruiser) was intended to provide a cruiser with the longer-range gun capability of the battleship, so that it could stand-off against it's likely opponents - which would be unlikely to be battleships - and hit them before the battlecruiser entered the range of the opponent's guns. The increase in gun size was not so much for raw firepower, just that if you increase the size of the gun calibre, then range is also increased - otherwise you would need a new design of gun in the usual smaller calibre with perhaps an increased charge to get the additional range. It was quicker and cheaper to just up-gun to the next size gun. The battlecruiser was intended for long range steaming and so the armour was sacrificed for additional bunker capacity and for overall ship speed so that it could reach trouble spots more quickly. Unfortunately due to the battlecruiser having the same size guns as the contemporary battleship, they tended to get used in situations for which they were inappropriate, i.e., the ''Hood''.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.4.57.101|80.4.57.101]] ([[User talk:80.4.57.101|talk]]) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::The 8-inch gun limitation was per the Washington Naval Treaty, and all signatories (US, UK, Japan, others) abided by that until the Japanese (and Italy) withdrew from the [[Second London Naval Treaty]] conference in early 1937 (see also Friedman's battleship book). In March 1938 the remaining treaty powers triggered an "escalator clause" in battleship design, which resulted in the {{Sclass|Iowa|battleship|1}}s. With the outbreak of WW2 in September 1939 all parties basically threw out the treaties. Based on rumors Japan was planning new 12-inch-gunned cruisers (and possibly also in response to the German {{Sclass|Scharnhorst|battleship|4}}), the {{Sclass|Alaska|cruiser|1}}s were designed and built to match them, and also act as "cruiser killers". These were designated CB for Cruiser, Big and were sometimes called "battlecruisers", but were more accurately called "large cruisers". They did not resemble the WWI-era battlecruisers, which were about the size and gun caliber of battleships but sacrificed armor and number of guns for speed. The Russian {{Sclass|Kirov|battlecruiser|1}}s are usually called that due to their large size and heavy anti-ship cruise missile armament. [[User:RobDuch|RobDuch]] ([[User talk:RobDuch|talk]]) 21:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

== Possibly unclear? ==

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but it seems to me that in the last paragraph of the 'Later 20th Century' section, it's not entirely clear what name is being misapplied.

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #eeffee; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #AAAAAA;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the debate was '''move'''. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]][[WP:ESP|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green;">a</span>]][[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">llion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
==Requested move==
[[Cruiser (warship)]] → [[Cruiser]] – the article was moved last month without first gathering a group consensus; of the 676 articles linking to ''Cruiser (warship)'', only 50 link directly to the current name and 500 of them link via the ''Cruiser'' page's redirect

===Voting===
:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''
* '''Support''' - the article was moved without first gathering a group consensus, and while 500 articles link to ''Cruiser'' only 50 link to ''Cruiser (warship)''. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] | [[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]] 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per above comment --[[User:Lox|Lox]] ([[User talk:Lox|t]],[[Special:Contributions/Lox|c]]) 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' also per above comment --[[User:Spot87|Spot87]] 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Suppport'''. I already commented below, doesn't hurt to reiterate. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I do not know what possesed me to move the page. (I must have been high:-) [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - [[User:Cjrother|Cjrother]] 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. --[[User:Ekeb|Ekeb]] 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''''Support'''''  Given the numerous meanings (at least in my dictionaries for the term – warship, police car, pleasure boat, person who likes cruising ...), I can see why someone did this; however, I don't agree with it nor in the failure of the 'offender' to discuss the move beforehand. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''', obviously, as long as an {{tl|otheruses}} tag remains at the top. --[[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

===Discussion===
:''Add any additional comments''
''The following were moved here from [[Talk:Cruiser (disambiguation)]] by me. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] | [[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]] 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:I suggest this article be moved to [[Cruiser (disambiguation)]] and that [[Cruiser]] be a redirect to [[Cruiser (warship)]].  Nearly all existing uses of the term ''cruiser'' seem to refer to the warship type.  --[[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
::I agree, I don't understand Tomstar81's motivation in changing what has been working just fine for many years. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 20:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Seriously&mdash;why? I agree with the proposal. [[User:D-Rock|D-Rock]] ([[User talk:D-Rock|Yell at D-Rock]]) 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
::I agree.  I don't see how this change helps anyone.  [[User:Cjrother|Cjrother]] 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== Origin of name ==

We have two explainations as to the origin of the name Cruiser - one in the intro, and one at the start of the following History section.  Can we either put both in the same area and list them as both possible origins, or examine which is actually correct?
:I don't see a problem. The intro gives the etymology of the word, while the history section gives the reason for its application. Perhaps a full definition of the word would be better... [[User:Therealhazel|Therealhazel]] 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested layout ==

I'd like to propose a layout for the article, broadly similar to that used at [[battleship]], which presents the material roughly in a chronological order, with shipbuilding, strategic considerations, and operations all considered for each type in roughly the same place. There is no reason at all why this cannot be an FA.

What I suggest is:
#Early history (to about 1850)
#Roughly 1850 - 1880: the age of unarmoured steam cruisers
#Development of Armored and Protected Cruisers - inc outline of the type of armor and tradeoffs required
#:Elswick types
#:Armored cruiser
#:Protected cruisers
#:Development of the PC into the 1910-ish Light Cruiser
#:The cruiser as destroyer or TB flotilla leader
#:Battlecruisers: Early 20th C view on obsolescent of the cruiser and results
#World War I: Very brief overview of operations placing the existing cruisers in their context; the ''Bacchantes'', Coronel, Falklands, Jutland, convoy duty
#Cruisers 1919-39
#:Cruiser design and production, 'light' and 'heavy', under the Treaties
#:Breaching of the Treaties, including Japanese heavy cruisers and the Pocket Battleships
#World War II
#Cold War
#:introduction of guided missiles, retirement of gun models (mention the ''Belgrano'')
#:cruiser's new role as fleet air defence unit 
#:AEGIS
#Cruisers in current navies

... what d'you reckon? [[User:The Land|The Land]] 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:Okay, I see where you are going, I will slowly start working on this one too, as all my current projects are coming to an end now. --[[User:MoRsE|MoRsE]] 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


::The evolution of the cruiser into the primary fleet AAW escort came about during WWII, and would be more appropriate under that section. --[[User:Dukefan73|Dukefan73]] 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Very fair point - sadly my sources only go up to about 1920 ;) [[User:The Land|The Land]] 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


== Contradiction ==
The articles for Cruiser and Destroyer both claim that "At the beginning of the 21st century, [destroyers/cruisers] are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use, with only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating [these/cruisers ]..."
-Greg (forgot my wikipedia username), 10:20am PST, June 18, 2007

:Note that Cruiser says "in use" while Destroyer says "in general use". However, the intro to Cruiser currently claims that Italy also operates a cruiser, but the text under "Late 20th Century" doesn't include Italy, nor does the intro to Destroyer. [[Special:Contributions/76.91.203.252|76.91.203.252]] ([[User talk:76.91.203.252|talk]]) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== More Recent history ==
I would like to suggest that you guys place a section or paragraph of more recent cruiser history  with the Belgrano sinking during the Falklands war. Numerous Falklands and Argentine and UK links exist, and the Cruiser page should likely reflect that.
--enm, 19:00 1 Nov 2007 (UTC)
:That is a good idea - we do need to be careful though not to duplicate the articles on Belgrano and the Falklands War - and Belgrano was an obsolete (and unrepresentative) cruiser... [[User:The Land|The Land]] 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:: General Belgrano was the ex-USS Phoenix, a USN Brooklyn class light cruiser. Had she closed to the necessary range to use her 6 inch guns against the Royal Navy vessels she could have done serious dammage to the amphibious operation.[[User:Two way time|Two way time]] ([[User talk:Two way time|talk]]) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

==Cruiser Epochs==

The history of cruisers is best described in the different "epochs" (for a lack of a better term) rather than a continual definition.

Epoch one: Cruisers in the age of sail (>1880)

Epoch two: Steam and steel (1880-1922)

Epoch three: The age of the Washington treaty and World war two. (1922-1945)

Epoch four: Airpower and missiles (1945-Present)

Each one of these epochs have cruisers acting in different rolls and with different design conventions. Comparing cruisers across these divisions is difficult because the technology and rolls have changed so much.[[Special:Contributions/137.144.147.201|137.144.147.201]] ([[User talk:137.144.147.201|talk]]) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[[User:Two way time|Two way time]] ([[User talk:Two way time|talk]]) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

== Viva la France! ==

The article makes no mention of the "Dupuy de l'Homme", even though that was the first protected cruiser with its 23 knots speed. A ship of just 18 knots cannot be called a cruiser, that would be ridiculous! [[Special:Contributions/91.83.3.127|91.83.3.127]] ([[User talk:91.83.3.127|talk]]) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

:I suppose you mean the "Dupuy de Lôme" (not "Dupuy de l'Homme"). [[User:JT Swe|JT Swe]] ([[User talk:JT Swe|talk]]) 02:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

::I suppose he/she does as well. However, to answer the anonymous editor's point, there is no lower limit on cruiser speed - cruisers have been around for a very long time and seen all sorts of technology come and go.... [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 10:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== HMS Caroline image text ==
In the image text concerning HMS Caroline, I added "light" to "cruiser" in the following sentence: "the only World War One era Cruiser in exsistence[sic]", to emphasize that it is the only LIGHT WWI cruiser still out there. There are other preserved cruisers from that era, i.e. the Greek "Georgios Averof" and Russian "Aurora". (Minor changes can matter too...). [[User:JT Swe|JT Swe]] ([[User talk:JT Swe|talk]]) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:''Aurora'' could also be referred to as a 'light cruiser'; while 'protected' is more accurate, cruiser terminology is far from precise... I have also rewritten the caption; the fact that ''Caroline'' is still in active service is more relevant than the fact she's still in commission. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 10:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

==Does Italy have cruisers?==
From the opening section: "only five nations (the United States, Russia, France, Italy and Peru) operating these at the time". That's fine. However the article on [[destroyer]] says "only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating cruisers". They can't both be right. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forget it. I have now read the whole paragraph, as I should have done before writing the above. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Cruisers]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Cruiser classes]]  ==

[[:Category:Cruiser classes]] is itself a category within [[:Category:Cruisers]] — [[User:Robertgreer|Robert Greer]] ([[User talk:Robertgreer|talk]]) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

== Heaviest - Cruiser or Destroyer? ==

"At the beginning of the 21st century, cruisers were the heaviest surface combatant ships in use..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser).

"At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer)  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.6.153.16|65.6.153.16]] ([[User talk:65.6.153.16|talk]]) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Go look at the ships of the World War II era, cruiser were the heaviest. Look now at the US Cruiser. Then look at the US [[Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer]]. And note the size difference about this class with a Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA differences. Next go look at [[Atago_class_destroyer]]; the [[KDX-III]] Korean Destroyers. The distinction between Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser in vastly blurred, each Nation for its own reason has different label size ideas on what to call a particular class of ships. In my mind a modern combatant ship above say above 8000 tons displacement, and greater than 50 significant size missiles (AAW or land attack, anti-ship missiles do not count is a Cruiser. I think that make NO modern European cruisers. Unsure what if any Indian or Chinese vessels become cruisers in this definition. When you read [[United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification]] and the section on the ''Cruiser Gap'', all ships reclassified under that had crew size above 500 as another factor.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.214.49.112|74.214.49.112]] ([[User talk:74.214.49.112|talk]]) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Unbalanced article ==

The article (and articles on various cruisers) is heavy on offensive capabilities and short on passive defensive attributes like armor plate [[belt armor]]. The people maintaining the pages on [[battleships]] don't have this weakness. This is particularly important as cruisers evolved into ships which no longer have armor plate (like [[USS Long Beach]]) in the old traditional sense. Likely weak on other similar things. [[Special:Contributions/143.232.210.150|143.232.210.150]] ([[User talk:143.232.210.150|talk]]) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

== Scout Cruisers? ==

There is a page on [[Scout_cruiser]] that is neither mentioned nor discussed from this article.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.183.50.36|66.183.50.36]] ([[User talk:66.183.50.36|talk]]) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Added. [[User:RobDuch|RobDuch]] ([[User talk:RobDuch|talk]]) 16:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

== Kara-class ==

I'm going to remove the mention about Kara-class, because whilst it was traditionally classed as 'cruiser' in the Western sources, it was called 'large anti-submarine ship' (ie. destroyer) in Soviet navy, and I've not found any Russian source which has implied that the designation has been changed. Also the ship is clearly equivalent to modern destroyers in role, armament and size. --[[User:Mikoyan21|Mikoyan21]] ([[User talk:Mikoyan21|talk]]) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

== South Korean and Japanese "Cruisers" ==

I went ahead and removed all references to the South Korean and Japanese "cruisers" from the article. I don't know the answer to whether or not these ships ([[Sejong the Great-class destroyer]] and [[Atago-class destroyer]]) should be classified as cruisers or destroyers. However, what I do know is that Wikipedia prohibits original research and requires citations. Every major source I have come across refers to these ships as destroyers. Furthermore, when carrying out the standard Google search results test, [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sejong+the+Great-class+cruiser%22 "Sejong the Great-class cruiser"] returns no results, while [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sejong+the+Great-class+destroyer%22 "Sejong the Great-class destroyer"] returns 3,010 results. Again, [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Atago-class+cruiser%22 "Atago-class cruiser"] returns 3,260 results, while [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Atago-class+destroyer%22 "Atago-class destroyer"] returns 7,530 results. (Please note, many of the results for "Atago-class cruiser" are due to overlap with the [[Japanese cruiser Atago]] from World War II.)

In addition, it seems to me that any sources that are used to support the "cruiser" classification must ''directly'' refer to the ships as cruisers. In other words, merely stating that they are ''comparable'' to cruisers is not sufficient. However, it also seems that if such claims of comparison are found in reliable sources, then obviously statements to that effect may be included in the article - ''if'' they do not imply that they actually are cruisers.

Therefore, it seems to me that until a reliable source that ''directly'' refers to either of these classes as "cruisers" is found, they should not be included in the article. —[[User:Noha307|Noha307]] ([[User talk:Noha307|talk]]) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:Concur. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 02:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:The same IP user is making the same sorts of edits on [[Destroyer]], adding frigates he/she considers to be destroyers, and removing the destroyers he/she considers to be cruisers. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 05:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am the one who is making these edits. Please stop changing them. I have done proper research. If you compare the specs of the following ships:

{{Sclass|Atago|destroyer|0}} from the [[Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force]] and the {{Sclass|Sejong the Great|destroyer|0}} from the [[Republic of Korea Navy]]. 

The reason these ships are more like cruisers than destroyers is their difference in size and strength when compared to destroyers from other countries. You may be right with the ''Sejong the Great''-class, but the ''Atago''-class is more easily compared to the United State's {{Sclass|Ticonderoga|cruiser|0}} cruiser than other destroyer classes. That is a fact and the ''Atago''-class was labeled as a cruiser on this website for a time being that was not done by me. 

If you want proof, read the articles of each ship and you will see them mentioned as such. The same goes for the European ships. For some reason, a lot of European countries under classify what they really have. All those European "frigates" are really "destroyers" by terms of size and strength. Just read the articles for each and they're even mentioned as destroyers by the international community. 

I am editing them back because I know I'm right. You gotta problem, sue me. 

- [[User:Battleship Sailor|Battleship Sailor]] ([[User talk:Battleship Sailor|talk]]) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

:All that is being asked is that you provide a [[WP:Cite|citation]] to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that makes the claim that you stated above. Right now it just looks like it's your opinion. You can't use another wikipedia article as a source, see [[WP:RS]] for more information. Uncited additions may be removed. --[[User:Dual Freq|Dual Freq]] ([[User talk:Dual Freq|talk]]) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

::The user is still edit warring at Destroyer. While he/she is attempting to add sources, some are blogs, while others still call the ships frigates that he/she is claiming are destroyers. In one case the source did state that the ships were the size and capability of destroyers, but that isn't saying the are destroyers, nor that they are commonly called destroyers in reliable sources. One newspaper source called the frigates "battleships"! - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

::Given the users statements above, it's probably time for ANI or 3RR. The user clearly isn't interested in building a consensus.

None of the references were blogs, all were legitimate defense articles. If you've noticed, the [[French Navy]] doesn't use the term "destroyer" but rather "first-rate frigate" and marks those ships with a "D" for destroyer and not "F" for frigate. (This includes the [[FREMM]].) 

All I'm trying to do is show what these ships ''REALLY'' are. And yes, the term "frigate" will appear first because these countries have classified them as such. Many European countries prefer not to use the term "destroyer" because they feel it is too "war-like." I know we're not allowed personal experiences, but I've studied naval history for 13 years and am an officer in the [[United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps]], so I know I'm right. Stop trying to deceive the public. These edits were up for MONTHS before you had a problem with it. 

Also, you're deleted more than you think. You're undoing other edits that ARE unarguably accurate. 

If you have a problem, I would say to do you're homework and see that I'm right. I'm not backing down.

-[[User:Battleship Sailor|Battleship Sailor]] ([[User talk:Battleship Sailor|talk]]) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

:It doesn't really matter who you are, what matters it what source you are citing. Please read [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." What you need is a reliable source that supports the assertions you are making. That's all that is asked of any editor. "Right" is what you can prove with a citation from a reliable source. --[[User:Dual Freq|Dual Freq]] ([[User talk:Dual Freq|talk]]) 01:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

:[http://winteryknight.com/2013/12/07/israel-boosts-navy-with-two-guided-missile-destroyers-bremen-brandenburg-saschen-from-germany/ This site] which you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Destroyer&diff=prev&oldid=670905627 added here] is clearly a blog, not a defense site. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 01:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

== World War II section ==

I am working on a World War II section and plan to post it in a few days. I'm primarily highlighting surface actions in which cruisers and battlecruisers played a part. I'm also considering doing a World War I section in the next few weeks. I welcome comments. [[User:RobDuch|RobDuch]] ([[User talk:RobDuch|talk]]) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

:World War II section entered. [[User:RobDuch|RobDuch]] ([[User talk:RobDuch|talk]]) 21:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Cruiser]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=795558477 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605223708/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/active/fleet.htm to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/ACTIVE/FLEET.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010522092000/http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm to http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 00:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)