Talk:HMS Belfast

"Largest and arguably most powerful cruiser"

The introduction asserts that Belfast was the "largest and arguably most powerful cruiser" in the Royal Navy in 1942. She certainly wasn't the largest and there is no argument made by the cited source for why she was the most powerful. Country class cruisers were larger by all measures (at all times), and they also carried heavier calibre weapons. The IWM is not sufficiently neutral or reliable as a source (being the owner) and the text has been copied verbatim from their website. I have, therefore, removed the text from both sections that use it, as per WP:CV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect about displacement but correct about weaponry. The Intro. and has been revised, with references, to reflect this. Also, it is ludicrous to argue that the Imperial War Museum is an unreliable source, whether or not it currently owns the ship Billsmith60 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The references you used make no claim about her being the heaviest RN cruiser ever. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

County class cruisers: 10,400 tons average standard, 14,150 tons average full load, 8 x 8" guns; HMS Belfast: 11,550 tons and 14,900 full load, 12 x 6" guns. Also, "In November 1942 under the command of Captain Parham, HMS Belfast was the Largest and most powerful Cruiser in the Royal Navy" (HMS Belfast Association") https://hmsbelfastassociation1938.org/history Billsmith60 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Dazzle

The article describes the camo scheme as "Admiralty Disruptive Camouflage Type 25". Was this a dazzle pattern? It looks dazzle-lite - it's very restrained - so I'm not sure whether to link to dazzle in the article. 87.114.59.23 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

2011 accident - Weiner thesis

I have removed a paragraph relating to a museum studies MA thesis that discusses the 2011 gangway collapse. I've removed this section for the following reasons; the paragraph did not appear to add any new information to the existing text; the paragraph seemed to give undue weight to an MA thesis; the thesis in question gets certain basic facts incorrect in its discussion of the accident (HMS Belfast's visitor centre is not located on Fleet Street); more generally, other errors of fact cast doubt on the thesis' reliability, such as suggesting that Nelson's Victory can be found in London (in a possible confusion with Cutty Sark), and the thesis does not appear to make the point about Belfast attributed to it in the paragraph. --IxK85 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted a user's edit to this page that deleted some of my comments above. Ref the user's edit summary, I do not believe that the comments were undue or unwarranted. As my original post clearly states, the comments explain my rationale for an edit I made to the article. Per WP:TPO, this edit of my comments seems inappropriate. IxK85 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I am reverting this back to the edit previousely made, due to the fact that it was indeed unwarrented to cast doupt on an academic work without cause. All points and statements made in the Weiner thesis are cited by reliable sources. Regarding HMS Victory, the vessel is quite often brought to various locations for special events. It is likely that, when the thesis was written, Victory could indeed have been in London. No one should ever cast doubt on any academic work without the auther being given a chance to defend it.Otaku155 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

HMS Victory is NOT "quite often brought to various locations for special events" - Victory has remained in dry-dock at Portsmouth since 1922. If the cited source is claiming that, then it does seem that it hasn't undergone adequate editorial scrutiny. MA dissertations are not normally considered as reliable sources on Wikipedia. (And do not refactor other editors talk page comments unless you have a very good reason).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference and the avoidance of doubt I have restored IxK85's first comment above as it was originally posted in this edit, because there clearly was no good reason for Otaku155's refactoring of it, which was reverted and then repeated. Quite apart from being bad manners, this refactoring conflicts with WP:TPO, which I would recommend as helpful reading for Otaku155. Regarding the substantive issue, whereas referencing a PhD thesis would be debatable, an MA thesis would, I'm sure, not be WP:RS. Nortonius (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding. I will point out that the error pointed out by IxK85 is cited (with the Victory's own website); perhaps the information in the source material was wrong. Perhaps it was simply an honest misquote or mistake; either way, you should not use it as an opportunity to discredit and call into doubt the entire work, which actually raised some good and accurate points. Why don't you try to contact the author and get the truth? Otaku155 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Specific errors in the thesis are more or less irrelevant for our purposes. Wikipedia does not consider MA theses to be reliable sources. As such, the point is moot.

On a related subject, the fact that the bulk of your edits has been to promote this thesis makes one wonder if you have a conflict of interest. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Could this ship get under power again?

What this article does not tell me is as to what state the ship is now in? Is it mostly intact or it a hull with some interpretive stuff inside? I mean is it just a floating gate guardian or is it more substantial that with maintenance it could be run again? 86.137.42.85 (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We'd need a source for that. Can you find one? My assumption would be that it would cost £millions to return the ship to a self-propelled condition, and that it'll never happen. Nortonius (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to HMS Belfast, disambiguation page moved to List of ships named HMS Belfast. (non-admin closure) Note: awaiting technical request to move this page. — KB3035583^talk 02:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

---

HMS Belfast (C35) → HMS Belfast – This ship is very well known and I was going to argue for its WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, before I realised that the only other HMS Belfast does not even exist yet, and does not even have an article. So this is not even a WP:TWODABS situation, the "disambiguation page" needn't exist, thus this article is the primary topic. I personally suggest it stays this way and a hatnote for the new one be placed, should an article be created. Lazz_R 13:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose we have a consensus to title ships helpfully, the other one is being built, so leave as is. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay but I could repeat my rationale to counter everything you just said. This ship is currently the Ptopic and unless the other ship becomes as significant, it will remain that way. Lazz_R 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the clear primary topic. The "helpful" (to whom exactly it is not clear) title will remain as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support We can reconsider this when the new HMS Belfast is launched, or otherwise gains enough notability to merit its own article. At present this is just confusing. See WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Having the pennant number on the article title won't hurt in any way. flixwito ^(•‿•)^ (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It's the clear primary topic. Per SHIPDAB "In a few cases, one ship is so much better-known than others of the same name that she need not be disambiguated." Calidum 01:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic, as per the exception listed at SHIPDAB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Note The current HMS Belfast article is a ship index. When a ship index is moved, as it should be in this case, the title of the new article would List of ships named HMS Belfast. So if you do move this article to HMS Belfast, it would be easier to move that article to the aforementioned list of ships article and then move this one to HMS Belfast. Llammakey (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Belfast’s 6 inch guns. How far will they fire

Is there any accurate info as to how far the 6inch guns would shoot 82.47.47.55 (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

They are aligned on, and could reach, the M1 services at South Mimms! BL 6-inch Mk XXIII naval gun gives a maximum range of 25,480 yd (23,300 m). Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Er, London Gateway (formerly Scratchwood). South Mimms services are at the junction between the M25 and A1. Mr Larrington (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

What crew was inside the ship during WW2

I have done research but I can't seem to find who was apart of the Belfasts crew. Evan15577 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Who would you expect to be on-board except crew? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)