Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
NA rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale
NA rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale

New discussion page banner, see discussion below.

It has been proposed that every WikiProject choose a single article which represents what the Project members hope each article will eventually look like, so that interested onlookers can see where a Project is heading. If this project is ready to choose such an article, please do so and link to it after the Project name at Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there are no articles ready for this yet, you may wish to focus as a group on an article which is close and/or will be relatively easy to research.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.


Archive
Archives
  1. January 2004 to April 2005
  2. April 2005 to January 2006
  3. January 2006 to June 2006
  4. June 2006 to September 2006
  5. September 2006 to November 2006
  6. November 2006 to January 2007

Contents


[edit] Ship article naming

I've been away for a couple days and maybe I missed something. However what I think needs to be mentioned is, I am pretty sure in the Naming Convention guidelines, a naval ship is supposed to be named by it's newest navy name. If the Vietnam name is most recent, shouldn't that be the name of the article? USS Serene should redirect to it and be mentioned in the article. Correct me if I am wrong. --JAYMEDINC 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really the issue we were discussing. The issue is when looking in the RVN Navy ships for the Nhut Tao (HQ-10) how would you know it was the USS Serene? My solution was to put the category in the redirect, so that the correct name would appear in the correct category. THis left no link in the actual article to the category. My solutions that is this.
Categories|Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships


It allows the categories, articles, and names all to work together. --71Demon 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, a naval ship is supposed to be placed at its best-known name. TomTheHand 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Best known name to who? To the USN vetrans that served aboard her and those researching it actions while in the US Navy? Or the Navy vetrans of the ROC who served aboard her, in many cases much longer than the ship was in USN service, and those people researching the actions of the ship while in the ROC Navy or any navy. This policy is subjective. If the ships entry is under the original, then that is something concrete. --71Demon 14:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but in most cases it's uncontroversial. For example, HMS Shah (D21) was laid down as USS Jamaica (CVE-43) and acquired by the USN but was transferred to the Royal Navy before seeing USN service. The article is located at HMS Shah, and I would strongly oppose moving it to USS Jamaica.
As another example, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was laid down as Simmons Victory, a Victory ship, and served under that name for about 18 years before being acquired and commissioned by the USN. She is best known for the USS Liberty incident, and we are not moving it to SS Simmons Victory.
In your above hypothetical, if a ship served in the USN and the ROC Navy, and we have equal amounts of information about each career, the article should be split. If a ship served in the USN and the ROC Navy, but the article focuses almost entirely on one career, the article should be named for the career actually covered.
If you have a case that's actually controversial, we can debate it specifically. If you have another idea for the naming guideline, let's discuss it, but giving the article the ship's original name will not work. TomTheHand 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom, this thread was never about article naming. I just offered an opinion on that. On the HMS Shah is was commissioned in to the Royal Navy, and not the USN, so I wouldn't have a problem with it being the main article. As for the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) I see your point, but as it stands now the guidelines you are using are subjective to the editors point of view as to which is more important. A merchant marine may argue that Simmons Victory is more important, which would be a weak argument, but not invalid. A hard guideline should be established. I would say articles should be listed as First Commissioned As with other names being used as redirects. I also added Name: Ships Name (Hull-##) to the box on the right. I think this will help. Example USS Serene (AM-300) --71Demon 15:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've split off the article naming thread. I'd still like to see other project members comment on the above categorization issue. What you're suggesting is contrary to Wikipedia naming policy, which is to give articles the names that are most likely to be searched for. It's not a completely objective guideline and there are debates about specific cases all the time, but naming the article after the thing most people will search for is the most useful to users of the site, which is the most important thing.
A name row has been added to the new ship infobox template, which was discussed above. I'll be moving the new template to the Template space soon. TomTheHand 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the split. Wikipedia naming policy is going to have things that do not fit well. Ships are somewhat unique in the fact that their two main identifiers name and hull number change. Some special allowence is going to have to be made, but it is best to have a naming convention that doesn't change. That is why I suggested "Commissioned As" --71Demon 16:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Articles should be placed at the name most likely to be searched, and there's no reason at all that ships don't fit with this. Again, if there's a specific controversy, we can address it, but what you're proposing is cutting off your nose to spite your face. We're not going to name ship articles exclusively after the first name the ship carried or was commissioned as. I'm sorry. It's a bad idea. TomTheHand 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Most likely to be searched by who? Wikipedia is not exclusively US --71Demon 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Most likely to be searched by Wikipedia's English speaking population. Once again, if you have a specific case where the naming convention is a problem, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I will not debate theoreticals with you. Your "Navy vetrans of the ROC" or "merchant marine [who] may argue that Simmons Victory is more important" are in a tiny minority. A person who served aboard Simmons Victory and feels the ship's service under that name is more important than its service as USS Liberty is, to be kind, expressing a fringe opinion. If we name an article after the ship's first name, when the ship is far better known by a later name, we are harming the article. TomTheHand 18:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
English is one of the most common spoken langages in the world. I'm not debating the theoretical. We have no set standard for naming of ship articles, that is not theory, that is fact. The UK Royal Navy and the US Navy shared some ships, both countries speak english, no theory in that, just fact. I would like to see a guideline to follow, first name commissioned is my offering. --71Demon 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The guideline is the name most likely to be searched for, which is the standard across Wikipedia and which applies just as well here as to every other article. That's the last thing I'm going to say. Enjoy responding to this to have the last word. TomTheHand 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a simple and unambiguous convention, but then you're forced to end up with some ridiculous examples, like CVEs that were US ships for 15 minutes before being signed over to the RN. If you accept making a "special allowance" for situations like this, then you're simply restating the status quo, where we exercise some judgement as to which is the best name to use. Stan 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but the status quo has no guideline, basically do what feels right. I never really even had a problem current naming anyway, and not sure who we got on the subject. I would have never brought it up, but since it was, I stated my idea. Those CVE's were not commissioned into the USN, just assigned names I believe. --71Demon 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OrphanBot

OrphanBot is ignoring {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} tags. I have put that tag on photos I have personally gotten from the National Archieves, that were taken by the USN. The bot needs to be fixed, but the editor that programmed it stated, that {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} is not enough. Then what is the point of the {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}? --71Demon 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the tag, you've got to say where you found the picture. For example, if it's from the Naval Historical Center's web site, you need to provide a link to where it came from. If you went to the NHC and scanned the picture yourself, you've got to say that. TomTheHand 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? That is what the {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} is for. If you put on the photo, I got it from the National Archives, then it is pointless to up {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}, because you already told them where it came from. It is like chasing your tail. It is basically saying, You told us it was a work of the USN, but we need you to tell us it is a work of the USN again --71Demon 15:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The template is a use rationale: "It's by the USN, and therefore public domain." You also need to provide a source: "I got it from their web site, http://navalhistoricalwhatnot.mil/pictures.html" TomTheHand 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that only covers website sources and there is no way to varify anything else anybody puts. If you put, "These were USN photos found at the Library in Mobile, Alabama" How do you varify that? Your trusting editors to put {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}, that should be enough. IF they are going to lie, then they are going to lie not matter what you ask them to put. --71Demon 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what to do for you beyond explaining what Wikipedia's policy is on this sort of thing. If you tell me where you got the photos, I can try to tell you what needs to be put on them to conform to Wikipedia's policy. TomTheHand 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand the policy, I don't agree with it. {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} should be sufficent. I think it waste editors time, if they had not created a Bot, they would not do it themselves because then they would be wasting their time as well. --71Demon 17:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS Abyssinia - new article, pls help

Hi. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, though of a few others and so have my hands full. So I'm posting this in the hope that someone more experienced with ship-articles and their expected/standard formats and various categories and stubs can please have a look at the article/stub I just made on the SS Abyssinia, which was the Canadian Pacific Steamships vessel that halved the Trans-Pacific shipping time from Yokohama to New York, via the port of Vancouver, the Canadian Pacific Railway and Montreal. I'll be creating various other ship articles to do with Vancouver's and BC's history in the next while (lots of them, mostly stubs to start; we have a large coastal/int'l shipping history, as well as a large number of inland steamer/ferry services, current as well as historical), so general guidelines as to content, layout and appropriate stubs/cats appreciated in general. Also, I've noticed that Canadian Pacific Steamships doesn't have its own article, and perhaps it should; Canadian Pacific currently redirects only to the Canadian Pacific Railway but even by the end of the 19th Century CP was a megacorporation with a number of subordinate companies, e.g. Cominco (the Columbia Mining and Smelter Co.), as well as CP Shipping (as CP Steamships was, I think, known later on).Skookum1 05:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the commercial ships infobox to it and filled in what information I could, also using this site: [1]. There are some contradictions between that site and the article, though, so I didn't try to fill in things like capacity. TomTheHand 14:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You have two read links Canadian Pacific steamships and CP steamship. I am assuming that CP stands for Canadian Pacific. If so seems when the article is written this should be one. If so, then I think CP steamship should be the format. I wanted to make sure that was your intent, before I made a change, or you can do it yourself it. --71Demon 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the opposite should be the format; we expand abbreviations. In the time period of the article, the company was Canadian Pacific Steamships. TomTheHand 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You should have clicked on it. [[Canadian Pacific steamships|CP steamship]] It was expanded. --71Demon 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What? It doesn't matter that it linked to an expanded name; the expanded name should be used in the article. TomTheHand 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The expanded name is used in the article above. It is accepted practice in writting that once you define the name Canadian Pacific, that using CP after that is ok. It is less ackward for the reader. --71Demon 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but only the first use should be wikilinked, and the first use should be Canadian Pacific Steamships. TomTheHand 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with CP being wiki linked the first time (and only) in this article. It confirms we are talking about the Canadian Pacific. I agree with you on not wiki linking a 2nd CP, if one existed --71Demon 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It turns out we do have an article on Canadian Pacific Steamships under its modern name, CP Ships. TomTheHand 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ship classes of the Nelsonic era, and other ramblings...

User:ChrisMCau has started creating class articles for ships of the Nelsonic era. From my point of view, this is unnecessary, as ships were referred to at the time purely by the number of guns they carried, and did no receive a class name until sometime later (perhaps the late 19th century, but don't quote me on that). That's the first point, the second is a particular page (also by him): Anson Class. I have added a self-contradict template to the page, for reasons that should be readily apparent after reading the first sentence. If you are going to assign these ships to classes, then none of them would come under an 'Anson' class - there would be no such class in fact. Indefatigable would be Ardent class, the others I can't remember off the top of my head. At the very least I think this article should be renamed to something like 'Razées of 1794'... but probably better would be to delete it. Any thoughts/opinions on these two points? Martocticvs 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know much about ships of that era, but what you've said matches with what I know: very few ships were actually built in "classes" at that time, in the sense we think of them today, and class names are a modern invention retroactively applied. Two things: first, I agree with you entirely about Anson Class, and Razées of 1794 might be a good name. It might be good to get the country into the name as well, though. Second, class articles should also specify the type of ship, so Minerva class should probably be Minerva class frigate. I'll rename the Minerva class myself, but let's discuss the razées further before renaming. TomTheHand 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. You're quite right about the retroactive class naming - for example HMS Agamemnon (1781) was built from the plans of HMS Ardent (1764), thus making her, by today's naming conventions, an Ardent-class ship. However, no one of the time would have called her that - she would have been a 64 to any and everyone. So really assigning class names for these ships is an entirely academic exercise and doesn't represent accurately how they were referred to at the time. As for razées - it wasn't particularly common for this to happen... there weren't lots of razéed ships in the service. A few of the more outdated 2-deckers were cut down to become frigates, but the vast majority of them remained as built for their careers. So on second thoughts, Razées of 1794 is probably not a good title, as it suggests that several ships were cut down every year, when this was certainly not the case. Razées of the Royal Navy might be more suitable. Martocticvs 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Razées of the Royal Navy sounds pretty good to me. It would allow a larger and more complete article. I've asked ChrisMCau to join the discussion and left a note over at Anson Class to see if anyone else has anything to say. TomTheHand 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While its true that the ships at the time were not 'comonly' refered to as "classes", certainly large groups of ships were built to the same draft, for example the Coventry class 28's, a group 13/15 28 gun frigates built between 1756-1757/85. The majority of the large RN 38's built after 1805 were either to the draught of the Leda or the Lively. The major refewrences on the period refer to them by classes - for example "the sailing navy list" by David Lyon, or Gardniners works on Royal Navy frigates. It seems the most sensible way to group the ships, as well as being the way the current litrature in press deals with it.

The three Razee's of 1794, or the three of 1813 pose a slight problem, but I dont see why they could be refered to as the Razzee's of 1794, or 1813 - it is my intention to work through the sailing frigates of the Royal navy, by class and by individual ships, the "Anson class" that is not a class fits in with the other large ships of the 1790's, Pommone etc, whereas those of 1813 fit in with the War of 1812.

Thanks for commenting here Chris. Whilst I don't have anything specific against pages listing these ships by 'class', the problem I do see is that in doing so we are applying modern categorisations (which have been done out of convenience by the authors you mention) rather than documenting the reality of the time. If there are to be Class articles, then they should state early on that the ships would not have been referred to as being a member of any class at the time, but is rather a modern contrivance. Additionally, these class articles have to be just that - named after the first ship built to that particular plan, rather than being grouped by a particular other similarity (such as being razéed). I think that there were too few razées for them to warrant a page by year, but a page for all razées of the RN would be a good idea I think. Martocticvs 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course its not, strictly speaking a modern convenience either. The Admiralty often ordered repeated ships from the same draught, clearly in an attempt to replicate their properties in the pursuit of particular goals. And we do have one clear case of the modern usage in the period, the 74's built to the combined design of Mr Rule and Mr Peake - commonly refered to at the time as "the Surveyors of the Navy class".ChrisMCau
I think it would make more sense to have a single article for a size, and have the "classes" as sections in it. Identifying a class and naming it is perilously close to original research - if there is a book or book chapter calling it the "Anson class", it could be justified that way. Stan 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The Surveyors' class is the only one I can think of that was referred to in such a way. In that instance, obviously an article could be created, but for just about any other, without a contemporary source it would basically count as original research. As for 'Anson class' - it is a terribly misleading title and should be changed. Martocticvs 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The others of which I am aware would be the "large class" and the "common class" of 74's - used to differentiate between those 74's built after 1785 that were 5-8 feet longer than the predesssors. Thats a different use from the modern use of course, I suspect that Lord St Vincent would never send a captain to a new command "of the Phoebe class", but he might send him to take command of a ship "built to the draught of the Phoebe". However, if you said to StVincent the frigates of the "Apollo class" were the ideal type of frigates, I suspect he would take your meaning, before damning you for the worst type of fool, then praising those frigates built to the draught of the Inconstant. I agree that "Anson class is not strictly accurate. Gardiner groups the three together, under the name "Razee 64 gun ships, 38 gun then 44 gun frigates...." The three ships certainly belong to a different group than the Majestic, Goliath and Saturn. Individual listings is far to unwieldy for a group of 250 ship, most of which shared a draught with one or more other from the group.ChrisMCau
I certainly see how there would be some benefit in creating articles to list ships built to the same draught, as that obviously would be useful to people. I do think we should try and avoid using the word class to describe these groups, however. Excepting where the term was used at the time, it just carries with it meaning that doesn't quite apply to these ships. Ships of the same class you would expect to be, barring a few differences in outfitting, to be basically identical, owing to the fact that the ships were built from the same set of comprehensive plans. Ships of this era were not designed with comprehensive plans, instead it was up to the shipwright to interpret the draught sent to him and build the ship from it (that's a generalisation but you get the point) - so there would have been many differences between different ships of the same 'class' - certainly stylistically, but sometimes functionally as well. Ships built to the plans of HMS Ardent would be a better, and completely unambiguous way of grouping these ships... though that title is a bit clunky obviously. If there aren't any objections though I think we should go ahead and rename the Anson Class article to Razees of the Royal Navy. Martocticvs 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer the term "class" for a number of reasons, namely that the term is not completely anachronistic, that "to the draught of" is clumsy, and that the major authors in this field, David Lyon and Robert Gardiner use this terminology for these vessels. As to the Razee's - I have no objection to a name change, but to repeate myself, I think the 64/44 Razee's of 1794 need to split off from the 74/50 gun Razee's of 1813.ChrisMCau
OK well that's reasonable enough. Perhaps just include a short section in those list articles mentioning how the ships generally wouldn't have been referred to by class at the time... by the way, don't forget to make sure you follow the article naming conventions for your pages, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship_classes (note no capitalisation of the word 'class' in the title, and the inclusion of the type of vessel). Martocticvs 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest

Hi. I just created this as part of an onslaught of at-least-stubs on marine history and ships in the history of BC and the Pacific Northwest; it was titled this way because BC didn't exist as name until 1858, and HM ships show up as far back as Drake...not sure if the Golden Hind should be included, as I'm not sure there was an RN back then; if it was a military-commissioned ship I'd say it qualifies (as in an inline comment on the page). The HMS Racoon is connected with the Fort George (Fort Astoria) incident during the War of 1812, and there are others who figure less in BC history than in Oregon's/Washington's, or perhaps Alaska's, so "Pacific Northwest" was used in the title instead of "British Columbia", which was too exclusive of other variables (notably the Colony of Vancouver Island, which predated the Colony of British Columbia and also is where the RN base was. As for the rest, I pulled them from the British Columbia Chronicle by husband-and-wife historians Helen B. and G.P.V. Akrigg, which is a standard opus on pre-Confederation BC history. On the list I'm meaning to add the names of their commanding officers but that's going to take some hunt-and-peck with the index vs. particular pages; some of these vessels were extremely significant in local history (the Tribune, the Plumper, for starters). Anyway once again could someone please look over the categories and stubs and add or change any needed as appropriate. A further article on the naval shipyard and another on the naval hospital at the RN base at Esquimalt (before it became CFB Esquimalt) will also be written; likewise the coaling stations at Fort Rupert and Nanaimo, although in both those cases the RN information will fit in the articles of the same name. A similar list of Spanish ships in regional history, and maybe Russian ones, is intended. A US one would be exhaustively long because of the military complex around Puget Sound, unless there were a cut-off date, e.g. 1940, pre-World War II.....Skookum1 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I've dab'd some vessels which had bluelinks, but not all, to distinguish them from later or earlier vessels. Anyone who'd care to continue this process please do so.Skookum1 09:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New ship infobox: bloaty?

Having used the new ship infobox a little, I've had some time to think about it and its features, and I've become concerned that it's become bloated. I was wondering what you guys think. See Template:Infobox Ship Example and its talk page to see the copy-and-paste code and read a little documentation about the template.

I'm up for suggestions on how to de-bloat-ify the template. I think that what actually appears on the article is fine, but I think the copy-and-paste code is excessively long, with many rows that would only be used in very specific circumstances. When you edit an article that used the infobox, the first couple of screens are all template, and most of the rows are empty. We generally discourage people from removing unused rows, because someone else could come in and fill in the blanks, but some blanks make no sense on some ships.

This issue sort of exists with the old Template:Infobox Ship, but the new infobox has a number of new rows, and the problem is magnified if you have a ship with multiple career sections or something.

One idea that I have is to possibly have different copy-and-paste code for different situations. For example, you'd have one set of the copy-and-paste code for age of sail ships, and another set for modern ships, because "sensors" make no sense on the old ship, and "tons burthen" make no sense on the new.

We could maybe have a tree or a table to help you navigate to the right one: What era is it? Is it civilian or military? American or Commonwealth English? The templates themselves would be unchanged; each set of code would call the exact same templates. We'd just be eliminating rows that would never ever get filled in.

A possibly easier solution is to have just two sets of copy-and-paste code: simple and complex. 90% of cases would use the simple code, which would contain only the most used rows, and if you needed extra features you'd grab the complex code.

Another idea is to reverse the guideline about leaving unused rows intact, and instead have a comment in the code that says something like "This infobox supports additional rows; see here for full information."

Anyone else have any ideas? Anyone think it's simply not a problem, or the above solutions make things worse? TomTheHand 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar thought whilst I was updating a few articles with this last night... maybe if there were different versions for the different eras as you suggest - the language specific variations can be left in as they don't account for much... Martocticvs 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I put together some of my ideas at User:TomTheHand/infobox-simplified‎. Please have a look, and feel free to edit that page directly if you want by adding or subtracting fields from different sections. TomTheHand 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of fields back into the Age of Sail section - captured, nickname, and honours - all of which I have need to use on several ships of the time. Other than that, looks good, and much more streamlined. Martocticvs 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that any fields which would be used on very few ships should be copied and pasted on a case-by-case basis. If you feel that you're going to use nickname and honours often, then I think they're appropriate for inclusion. I doubt you'll be able to use captured often, so it seems like a field that's best to paste in only when it's needed. Still, I imagine "captured" would apply to Age of Sail ships far more than any other era. TomTheHand 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps we can lose nickname... there aren't a vast number of ships where we can reliably state their nicknames. Captured I would leave in though - a reasonable number of articles would make use of this. Honours definitely needs to be there I think. Martocticvs 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As I don't really know much about the Age of Sail, I will leave the inclusion/exclusion of fields up to you :-) If, in your edits, you find that you never use a particular field, please remove it from [[my page; if you find that you need one, please add it. I'm in the process of editing a lot of submarine articles right now, so I'll work to further develop the submarine one.
After a little bit of time and development, we'll move the guideline to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables. TomTheHand 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another new article - SS Pacific

First draft, working from source; pls revise as necessary for WikiProject ships article parameters; more to come on other naval disasters in the Pacific Northwest Coast aka Graveyard of the Pacific (which hmmm should have the ships project template, as it's entirely about ships sinking in that region...).Skookum1 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadnought capitalization question

How should Dreadnought be capitalized when it is used to refer to the type of ship, rather than HMS Dreadnought herself? This may seem a bit nitpicky, but it's an inconsistency that's been bothering me. I've been doing some work on the Pre-dreadnought article, which doesn't capitalize dreadnought when used as a ship type. On one hand, it seems to me that it should, since the ship type is named after HMS Dreadnought, which is rightly capitalized as a proper noun. On the other hand, when used to describe a type of ship, dreadnought is not a proper noun. The Battleship article is split about 50/50, with about half the uses (other than references to the ship proper) being capitalized and half not. I've seen it both ways in other articles as well, though at least they tend to be more internally consistent. I don't really care which way, but some consistency would be nice. Blackeagle 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if you take the dreadnought part of the term refers directly to HMS Dreadnought, it should really be capitalised in all situations. However if you take it to refer to the type of ship (not even the class, just the fact that it was a significant shift in naval architecture), it could rightly be written uncapitalised. So the question is, to which does it refer? Martocticvs 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
All the examples I'm talking are where it refers to the type of ship. Blackeagle 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hum. I'd say if it's a specific reference to the first ship, capitalise and italicise; otherwise, don't do either. It seems a lot more sensible to use lower-case - "dreadnought" became a generic term pretty fast, no longer a proper noun.
So "Exemplar, with fifteen-inch guns, was essentially an improved Dreadnought" versus "Exemplar, launched 1907, was the Royal Navy's most powerful dreadnought when launched". Most of the references will be the latter, but context may sometimes require the former... Shimgray | talk | 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As the original author of most of the pre-dreadnought articles, I go with User:Shimgray. The ship, H M S Dreadnought clearly should be capitalised, but the generic category should not, any more than "cruiser", "destroyer" or "submarine" should.
Sounds like the consensus is lower case when not referring to the vessel proper.Blackeagle 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that lower case is the way to go. I've also just checked Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships, An Illustrated Design History, a well-respected text on the... um... design history of U.S. battleships, and he uses lower case. TomTheHand 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want to go by reference sources: Sail, Steam and Shellfire (part of Conway's History of the Ship series) uses lowercase, Warrior to Dreadnought (D.K. Brown) and Birth of the Battleship (John Beeler) both use uppercase. So reference books could be used to argue either way (not that anyone's arguing for the capital 'D' so far, but I'm just saying). Blackeagle 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEFAULTSORT

Just wanted to make everyone aware of a new Wiki feature, which you can read all about here. It's the {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word. It lets you specify one default sort term to apply to all of an article's categories. I wrote about it on our categorization subpage, and you can also read about it here. Check out this diff to see where CRKingston (talk • contribs) converted an article to use it. TomTheHand 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dab for Constitution

It seems like there should be disambiguation page for Constitution seeing as we have USS Constitution, USS Constitution (CC-5), and SS Constitution. However the usual name for the naval dab page is taken and I don't think anyone seriously wants to move USS Constitution to USS Constitution (1797) to give equal time to an unnotable hull cancled when 13.4% complete. So how about Ships named Constitution? Although I suppose List of ships named Constitution is more wiki canon. What say ye WikiProject Ships? --J Clear 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the 'pedia standard in these cases is "USS Constitution (disambiguation)" or perhaps "Constitution ship (disambiguation)". Compare Denmark (disambiguation). Jinian 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
"USS Constitution (disambiguation)" would be just two entries, so I wanted to include the SS Constitution to make it three and avoid going back to three dablinks at the top of USS Constitution. Much as "Constitution ship (disambiguation)" doesn't sing for me, it may be better than the list formats. Or maybe I should just go for Constitution (disambiguation) and include the documents. Seems like another cup of Kona coffee is called for to decide such weighty matters on a sleepy Sunday morning.--J Clear 14:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title format for new list?

I'm going to start List of ships in British Columbia as a companion-piece to List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest but am wondering about the suitability of the title; would List of ships in the history of British Columbia be more appropriate? Open to suggestions; I can always make the original a redirect if there's a more appropriate/correct title format. NB I'm using British Columbia in this case, despite the Pacific Northwest usage in the Royal Navy one.Skookum1 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and made it; if someone doesn't like the title pls let me know and we'll work on it. I was uncertain with Spanish and Russian vessels as to whether or not to use "SS" so left that off the entries in question; also in some cases I'm pretty sure the British/Canadian vessels may be "MV" instead of "SS" but I didn't mine the texts of the sources, only the indexes, and the distinction may not be present in the texts anyway; but please have a look at the "edit" version of the page for the dabs I've used on SS Massachusetts and SS Enterprise; might be the "(Northwest Coast)" isn't needed; I didn't examine those disambiguation pages to see if the vessels in question might already be listed/titled.Skookum1 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK naval ship stub types

The UK naval ships stub type has become very large; I've made a proposal here to create a number of more specific stub types to help bleed off some of them... Please comment there if you have any thoughts. Alai 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Worden (CG-18)

I'd like a second opinion on new information being added by a user citing themselves as a source. See [2] and most recent edits to USS Worden (CG-18) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Thanks. --Dual Freq 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Might be legitimate, but it sounds a little like sour grapes to me and I'm not sure if it needs including in quite so much detail. Martocticvs 23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
True maybe, though not reliably sourced, is it encyclopedic? --Dual Freq 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
With the claims being made there, I think it absolutely needs to be sourced. Martocticvs 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. I'm glad that it's gotten trimmed down to something reasonable, but I hate dealing with sources that aren't easy to verify. I'm especially uncomfortable because he said that the information about the location where the ship was sunk was from the U.S. Navy's site, when it doesn't come up on any Google searches of navy.mil. I found a source for that info and put it in, but I'm still concerned about him just making sources up. TomTheHand 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to drag other editors into it. --Dual Freq 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes to ship infobox

Saintrain (talk • contribs) has suggested some changes to the ship infobox over at Template talk:Infobox Ship Example. Essentially, he feels that the motto, nickname, honours, honors, notes and badge rows should be moved from Characteristics to Career, and class should be moved from Career to Characteristics. I see the logic, and I really just stole the current arrangement of fields from the old Template:Infobox Ship without really thinking through the reasons for putting the fields where they were.

However, if we make these changes, every article that uses the infobox will need to be updated to copy the fields from one subtemplate to the other. That's a little over 100 articles, which is not unmanageable. However, as usage of the templates expands, this sort of change will become harder and harder to make, so we shouldn't get too used to doing it.

Another possibility is to have both the Career and Characteristics sections support all of the fields, but only document the usage that we currently consider preferable. In this case, I think we can update the 100 usages without too much pain, but in the future if we absolutely need to make this kind of change again we could do it that way.

What does everyone think? Good idea? Worth the effort? Hopefully Saintrain will pop in and give details. TomTheHand 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy! I missed this page and the discussions about the new infoboxes and didn't mean to get ahead of any concensus. Sorry.
My reason for the edits was to have a generic "Class" table that can be used in the ship's class description article, e.g. Gilliam class attack transport, and also in the separate articles of each ship in that class. Details to be worked out. (I had a WHOLE lot of fun trying to do that with the old Infobox_Ship template before discovering the new templates. I'm happy. The new infoboxes are great. Very clever ability to display multiple careers etc.)
I think having duplicate attributes in both templates is just fine: backward compatible; no disruption in functionality; no back edits/updates; and for all I know "classes" of ships get honors(?) and certainly have nicknames ("tin can", "flat top").
So for a kind of after-the-fact announcement, I've
There's no change in functionality exept to duplicate the attributes.
Hope I didn't cause any trouble (or worse, any work) --Saintrain 18:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like the new infobox! I've found it to be pretty useful. I've spent some time thinking about your proposal to use the new ship infobox for classes as well, and I have a few thoughts about it.
First, we already have two class infoboxes (which might be a bit of a mistake, but different people like different things): Template:Infobox Class and Template:Infobox Ship Class. Classes have some fields you wouldn't put on a ship, and ships have some fields you wouldn't put on a class. I think it's necessary for class infoboxes to contain some different information from ship infoboxes, and I don't think we can simply use the ship infobox on classes directly.
However, certain things would be identical between ships and classes. The same Image and Characteristics subtemplates could be used. Career would only be found on ships, and classes would need a different subtemplate with class-specific information. That'd allow some code consolidation, which would be pretty neat, and it might mitigate the learning curve: once you know the new ship infobox you know the new class infobox as well!
You mentioned above having a generic table that could be used on each ship and on the class itself. Yes, we could definitely do that: there'd be a Template:Characteristics Gilliam class attack transport which would provide the entire characteristics box for each ship and for the class itself. Each ship would have its own career, and the class would have its own class info subtemplate.
I have two concerns. First, I'd worry about the learning curve, but it might not be too bad. Second, as I said above, we already have two class templates, and I don't like the idea of forking yet again. It could be confusing, and I also don't want to slight the creators of the other two infoboxes by implying that they shouldn't be used any more.
Anyone else have any thoughts? TomTheHand 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help using infobox Ship

Hi, Can I ask for some expert help. At Wikiproject Bristol we are trying to ensure that all the articles for the city have infoboxes (and pictures etc) & I've tried using the ships infobox on SS Great Britain, Matthew (ship) and Pyronaut which are all permanently in Bristol Harbour. I've read through all of the discussion above, about its use, but I can't make any sense of this infobox & a lot of it only seems to apply if the ship was military. Any help or advice appreciated.— Rod talk 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. We have a new ship infobox that we're trying to use, and I think it will be very useful in this case. First off, check out Template:Infobox Ship Example. Click on the "Show" button for the code for a civilian ship, and you'll see what you need to copy and paste into an article. Paste it at the top and fill in all the fields you can. TomTheHand 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I originally planned to put an infobox on one ship as an example, but I need to do some thinking about how I want to do it, as these ships don't have much of the information I usually try to fill in. If I've given you enough information to proceed, please do so, but I'll still try to put an infobox on one of them. TomTheHand 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks thats great. I've had a go at SS Great Britain & Pyronaut but there seems to be lots of gaps eg what should go in "status" for a ship which is now a museum piece & was never military? Is the capton supposed to be to the left of the image rather than below it? where should height above the deck be recorded? what should be put in complement when the ship has had so many different uses? Is gross tonnage the same as displacement? Any further help appreciated.— Rod talk 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For "status", I would say "Museum ship in Bristol Harbor" or something of that kind. For the image, replace "thumb" with "300px" and the caption will go below the image. Infobox Ship doesn't actually have any place to put height above deck, and it's something that's not specified too often, so it might be strange to add it. Not sure what to tell you there. Complement would generally be the crew and wouldn't include passengers; not sure if that'd help you. You could also specify the conditions that the complement applies to, like "70 sailors (as launched)" or "110 sailors (in 1878)". Gross tonnage is not the same as displacement; gross tonnage is a measure of volume while displacement is a measure of weight. Infobox Ship doesn't support tonnage, only displacement, so if you want to list tonnage you'll need to use the infobox I suggested above. TomTheHand 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insert image here

The insert image here symbol has been questioned as breaking the 4th wall and lacking professionalism by telling / ordering people to insert an image on Image_talk:IIH.png. I noticed www.imdb.com uses "no photo available" rather than insert image here so I uploaded a different version, which is also narrower vertically. Possibly something more artistic could be done, but I like a thinner version and despite being called IIH.png I like the wording better. I like having the placeholder image because it allows me to find articles without images. It's allowed me to add numerous images to ship articles using the File links section on the image page. Any comments? Perhaps I should have asked first, but reverting is fairly easy as has been done with other versions of the image. --Dual Freq 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. First, I think shrinking the image is a really good step. Second, I think "no photo available" really addresses the issues people have mentioned in reference to the IIH tag. Currently, Template:Infobox Ship Image does not use the IIH image when no image is specified because of the fourth wall issues, but I'll happily insert this new image later today when I get a chance. I do think an svg version would be a good idea, but I've got no idea how to make one. TomTheHand 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the svg version, slightly different font and I kept the original 299px width. --Dual Freq 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the svg version to Infobox Ship, as well as Infobox Ship Image, which is the image portion of the subtemplated infobox. TomTheHand 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait, no, looks like I messed it up. It's not working right now. I'll get it fixed. TomTheHand 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. It looks like the "No Photo Available" pic appears when no "Ship image=" line is present, but if one is present and empty, the pic won't display. If anyone can fix it on either {{Infobox Ship}} or {{Infobox Ship Image}} I'd be grateful. TomTheHand 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision to main page

Yesterday I made some revisions to our project main page, somewhat based on ideas I got looking at WP:MILHIST. I tried to reorganize things, grouping similar topics together. I moved some long stuff to subpages. I also removed some stuff and added some things of my own. I think it's much cleaner now, but it's not very pretty. Looking at all that plain text makes my eyes glaze over. Anyone have any suggestions?

I also really dig the navigation box that MILHIST uses. See Template:WPMILHIST Navigation. I think I'd like to work up something similar for us.

I think it'd be really cool if we could get a project to-do list going. Maybe we could do it as a template, so if people wanted to they could transclude it onto their user pages. We could all add to it, so that people who might want to join can see the types of things we do. We could also help each other out with our projects.

I'd also like to make a push for putting Template:WikiProject Ships on the talk pages of all of the articles we touch. It'd get some fresh blood into the project. TomTheHand 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? Great effort TomTheHand. I wish I had some suggestions but I'm having enough problems beautifying a wiki of my own atm. Next time I consult a ship article (very frequent) I'll stick in the template if it needs one. --Harlsbottom 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G/A-Class review for Battleship

The Battleship article is up for a G/A-Class review. Any input is welcomed as always! --MoRsE 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submarines

Is the normal ship infobox meant to be used for submarines as well?

(I ask because someone has now created {{Infobox Military Submarine}}; if this is, in fact, redundant, its deployment should probably be nipped in the bud as quickly as possible.) Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The normal ship infobox is meant to be used for submarines as well, so I would agree that this new infobox probably should not be used. TomTheHand 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've created the Submarine infobox because the Ship infobox doesn't at all contains the parameters needed for describing a specific submarine and/or u-boat like Unterseeboot 47 (1938), not just a type or class which ship infobox in some cases can be used for. I know a submarine is categorized as a ship but if you take a good look at the two infoboxes and their parameters you will see the differences. Usually ships are not massproduced in a specific type or class like a submarine/u-boat. I understand you concern but the ship infobox just isn't adaptable for the purpose of the submarine/u-boat infobox in my opinion and also the other way around. If you take a look at the German wikipedia ([3]) you will see that their solution was the same and u-boats are much better and streamlined documented than the english is so far. I have the outmost respect for people working on ships and creating standardized templates but I simply don't see these two types of infoboxes merged together Keallu 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be simpler to just add the missing fields to the ship infobox (particularly given that it already supports a major point the separate one doesn't: submarines serving with multiple navies)? There's not that many of them, and most would apply to other ship types (particularly commerce raiders) besides submarines. Kirill Lokshin 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be done but I think we will have the experts from WikiProject Ships do it. I won't touch their template out of plain fear :-) The ship infobox isn't very well documented either. "Characteristics" is not very well suited for submarine/u-boats in my opinion since that dependes solely on type of sub/u-boat. Eventhough this is forced by the ship template. Besides that specific u-boat details such at Fieldpost number, yard number, commanders and successes are not part of the ship infoxbox as far as I can see. I'm in support for standardization of infoboxes but the ship template needs severe adjustment in my opinion to fullfill goals for u-boats. Besides that I like the submarine infobox and design better but maybe it's a question of taste :-) Keallu 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the design is being discussed just below, so the ship infobox may yet be adopting the MILHIST style.
As for the fields, it should be easy to add them; but I'll wait for some feedback from the regulars here before starting to play around with their template. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sort of coming into this conversation late, but I'll try to summarize my thoughts. First, your infobox is pretty much U-boat specific; it is not a general submarine template. I don't think it's a good idea to have such a specific template. Second, the ship infobox is intended to describe individual ships belonging to both large and small classes, whether they are surface ships or submarines. The "Characteristics" section is appropriate for u-boats; information like displacement, dimensions, armament, and test depth would be helpful for a reader to see.

I believe we should discuss which fields, if any, would be appropriate to add to the general ship infobox, and put them in. I think many of the fields on Infobox Military Submarine are way too U-boat specific, though, and the information should just be covered in the article.

Please check out Template Talk:Infobox Ship Example for documentation on how to use the ship infobox and some examples of its use. TomTheHand 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings fellow wikipedians. I've found the documentation for Ship infobox, sorry for the misunderstanding and inconvenience for this. Eventhough I still think the above discussion depends on the eyes that are looking. Some of the elements in the Ship infobox is by my opinion also very specific for certain ships, so I can't see why submarine/u-boats shouldn't be able to have that. If you have to go through the whole article to search for a detail (like fieldpost number or yard number) that are common for all submarine/u-boats but maybe not surface vessels, and thereby belongs to an infobox for such an article, it's just looses the value of the infobox. An infobox should sum up the most important facts and details about the "thing" and for submarine/u-boats some of them are important which are not for commerciel vessels or warships. If infoboxes are to be merged I must strongly suggest that all needs are covered. I have used quite a lot time of putting together a proper infobox for submarine/u-boats based on many articles and source/references. I would be very sorry to see that going into the "sea" because more ship-focused (vessels on the surface) people gives priority for their descriptive elements in an infobox. Keallu 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some fields in the ship infobox are pretty specific. However some of your fields, like fieldpost number and yard number, are entirely specific to u-boats and aren't useful for submarines in general. I don't think I should be characteritized as a "ship-focused person." I have an interest in submarines as well, and I have lately been hard at work cleaning up articles for the Balao class submarines, but I think standardization across infoboxes is more valuable than including information that is only relevant to ships of one type serving with one country.
Please check out USS Balao (SS-285) for an example of how I think a submarine article should look using the standard ship infobox.
If you insist upon using this infobox instead of a standard ship infobox, I'd request that you make it clear that the infobox is not for submarines in general, but only for u-boats. TomTheHand 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, couldn't some of the things simply be worked into more general fields? For example, rather than having specific fields for fieldpost and yard numbers, we could add a general "identification number" field of some sort, and then have it set as |number=123 (fieldpost), 456 (yard). Similar things could be done for the commander and unit.
(As far as the record of successes—which is really the hardest thing in the new infobox to place—is concerned, we have an alternative possibility available. If the ship infobox is converted to use the MILHIST style, we can create an auxiliary template where this material could be developed in more detail; see, for example, {{command structure}}.) Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with adding "commanders" or "unit" (or something along those lines) to the ship infobox. As I said, I think fieldpost number and yard are so specific that I don't think adding them to the infobox is a great idea, but since we do have different sets of code available for different types of ships, we could just add U-boat specific code with U-boat specific parameters. It's just that I think the infobox should primarily focus on information that's common across many different ships.
I'm not sure that converting the ship infobox to MILHIST style is possible; we'll lose the flexibility that the current structure allows or end up with something difficult to use and maintain. However, we could potentially add an optional subtemplate for successes/awards/battle stars/etc to the ship infobox; I'm really more in favor of putting that information in the article, but I do think "How many ships did it sink?" is a common enough question that perhaps we should make it very easily accessible to a casual browser. TomTheHand 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems like we might be talking about different things here. What I meant by "MILHIST style" was the visual style of the box (which you just created an implementation of one section down); it wouldn't entail any functional changes. Kirill Lokshin 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about the misunderstanding. I remember a few months ago we discusses revisions to the infobox, and you supported a one-template solution as opposed to the multi-template one. I thought you might be suggesting that. We could honestly create another auxiliary template whether we move to the MILHIST style or not, but I do think the MILHIST style is a good idea in the interest of standardization. TomTheHand 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
True, that. The main advantage of the common style is that the resulting auxiliary template could be used with other MILHIST infoboxes as well; I could see, for example, a more complex "service record" template being used for both ships and military units. Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm at the point where I get your ideas and agree upon the rightfullness of a standardized ship template (infobox) including submarine and u-boats. My wish is simply that appropriate fields and/or sub-template will be available so it is possible to have an infobox containing the same information as the current submarine infobox does. I know fieldpost and yard number are specific for u-boats but in the end it is important information and there are over 1000 u-boats in total to document from both WWI and WWII. Just to let you know there exists an even older U-boat infobox implementation but not very stylish or good-looking in my opinion and far from the perspective of this discussion. I find that implementation of multi-templating very confusing and un-userfriendly. See it at e.g. Unterseeboot 172. It also lacks a lot of information. Keallu 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


U-47's combat service
Operations 10 patrols under Günther Prien, as part of 7. Unterseebootsflottille
Victories 30 ships (162,769 GRT) sunk,
1 warship (29,150 tons) sunk,
8 ships (62,751 GRT) damaged

Okay, as a way of removing the need for some changes to the primary ship infobox, I've created the auxiliary {{service record}} template; comments would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a few questions before I make suggestions. First, can fieldpost number change? Would it be possible for a U-boat to transfer to a different flotilla, and would it then receive a new fieldpost number? Second, I've tried to look up "yard number," and it seems to be a number assigned to a ship by its builder. Is that the case? So it can't change, and two boats from the same yard can't share the same number? TomTheHand 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If my above assumptions are correct, here's what I'd suggest:
    1. Adding yard number to {{Infobox Ship Career}}, right below the "Builder" row. Though I wasn't previously familiar with this information, it seems most, if not all, shipyards assign yard numbers to each of their projects. I think this field would be widely useful.
    2. Possibly separating Commanders and Units into their own fields in the "Service record" box.
    3. Adding fieldpost number to "Service record" box. It could potentially just be mentioned in the "Units" row, if my understanding of fieldpost numbers is correct.
Thoughts? TomTheHand 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that auxialliary type-specific class templates are a good idea, both "Career" and "Characteristics". See my comments in the next section. --Saintrain 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Kirill was not suggesting that auxiliary type-specific class templates are a good idea, for either Career or for Characteristics. He was suggesting that an additional, optional "Service Record" template could be added where appropriate in addition to the standard Career and Characteristics templates. TomTheHand 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Combat service
Part of 7. Unterseebootsflottille (1938–41)
Commanders Günther Prien (1938–41)
Operations 10 patrols
Victories 30 ships (162,769 GRT) sunk,
1 warship (29,150 tons) sunk,
8 ships (62,751 GRT) damaged

As desired, {{service record}}, MkII. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are very close to a good solution. I like the service record template and that yard number will be part of the default template. The fieldpost number is anglofied from the Germen Feldpostnummer and most u-boats only have have designation eventhough they have been part of multiple flotillas. I found the following definition on [4]:
Feldpost numbers are coded Wehrmacht units.

Another description [5]:

To preserve the secrecy of troop movements, each battalion was assigned a five digit code number called Feldpost Number (FPN). By the end of 1939, letter prefixes "L" and "M" were attached in front of each FPN to units belonging to the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. A breakdown by military units was added by attaching letter prefixes "A" through "E" at the end of each FPN. The letter A generally signified headquarters company, the others stood for line companies. The sequence of a FPN does not necessarily mean that the location of the units were at the same area. The postal cover/postcard itself was usually stamped with a military Feldpost Cancellation and Official Military Unit Seal. Feldpost numbers were sometimes reassigned to other units, particularly when a unit ceased to exist. Normally Feldpost mail could not be dispatched nor received by civil post offices.

I'm not sure exactly how Feldpost number were and possible are used in Germany. We might need some experts for this. It seems like it was used for mailing postage to the e.g. the crew on a u-boat and therefore didn't change eventhough it changed flotilla. I think this article [6] covers it, but we might need confirmation from experts. The German wikipedia article [7] could be a reference as well. Keallu 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just found a proper and precise definition on [8]:
Each German Unit throughout the war had a Military Feldpost number. This was the unit's identification number when family members and friends wanted to send mail to the corresponding unit. It wasn't unusual for the same feldpost number to be used for different units throughout the war. As one unit would be destroyed, then the number might have been reallocated at a later date. Keallu 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so would fieldpost/feldpost number be better suited to placing in the Career section, or the Service Record section? And where, exactly? While I don't have an issue with putting it in the Career section, I can't really decide what spot in the section would be most appropriate (at the end? after the commissioned date?), and so I'd prefer to put it in Service Record. TomTheHand 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Feldpost number should be renamed to something more common amongst all nations regarding military mail. Feldpost is just the German name for military mail and Feldpostnummer or anglofied fieldpost/feldpost number the specific number assigned to a unit to sent militatry mail to from civilians, e.g. family and/or friends. I'm sure ships as well is fitted with a sort of ID for military mail. Maybe it should be called Military mail tag, id or number or something like that. I would think it should be in the Career section around status but I can see your point. It could just as well be in the service record. The number can be assigned at multiple units if the units is discharged, destroyed or something like that. A new unit can then receive an identical number. Keallu 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So, has anything actually been implemented here? What changes do we still need to be able to convert {{Infobox Military Submarine}} to a regula ship infobox? Kirill Lokshin 13:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Kirill, guess I stepped on your toes with the mail tag thing. I went ahead and added "yard number" to the main ship infobox, but I think the military mailing address is a service record issue. It doesn't really fit anywhere on the Career template, which is pretty event-focused: when the ship was built, who built it, when it commissioned, when it decommissioned, what happened to it since.
I've been really swamped at work lately and have only been making sporadic edits, not working on any of my projects. I think we need to find a place to put the military mail ID/tag/whatever, and then stop using Infobox Military Submarine and eventually replace all uses of it with the regular ship infobox. TomTheHand 13:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's no big deal. ;-) (But I don't think the mail code is really part of a "service record" as the term is commonly understood; it doesn't have anything to do with what the ship does, but rather with what the ship is.)
More generally, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just create some sort of ID number oriented auxiliary template for this type of thing. There's recently been a request to add facility codes to the military structure infobox, for example. Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I might just be misunderstanding military mail codes and/or the way they apply to ships, but it seems that if you're listing commanders and units a ship was part of it's equally logical to list mailing addresses it held. Feldpost numbers may be pretty static, but I think British Forces Post Office numbers are based on the location where the unit is currently serving, so if it's transferred from, say, Loamshire to Iraq, I think it would use a different BFPO number.
As far as an ID template goes, I'm not necessarily opposed, but I wonder if it's a good idea to have a template that just puts one line onto a page. You're not going to use both the feldpost number and facility code fields at the same time. TomTheHand 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a good point; I admit I hadn't thought of the codes in that way. Maybe they would work better in the service record box, after all.
Possibly obvious question: are there any other kinds of codes aside from the mailing ones that would be assigned to ships (or other units) in this manner? (Would it be worthwhile to make the field more generic, in other words?) Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of other codes (I don't know much about mailing codes either), but I don't have a problem making the field more generic. I'll leave a message on Keallu's talk to let him know this discussion is active again so we can get his opinion. What did you have in mind? TomTheHand 14:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
At the most generic, we could have it be something like "Identification codes: M 18 837 (feldpost)", with the field thus usable for pretty much anything. I don't know if that would be over-complicating things, though. Kirill Lokshin 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Want to wait a couple of days to see if Keallu drops by, or just add an ID code field? TomTheHand 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We can probably wait for a bit to see if anyone has a better idea; there's no real rush at this point, I think. Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, given the lack of comments, I've gone ahead and added a "codes" field to the box. Kirill Lokshin 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my lack of response, but I've been busy with other things recently. I think your discussion endede well and the result is somewhere close to my suggestion with the Military mail tag, id or number so fine by me Keallu 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox styles

Out of curiosity, would there be any possibility of the various infoboxes used here adopting the MILHIST infobox style? (Please feel free to tell me to go away and take my stupid ideas with me, of course! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind one bit, but it might take me a little while to get enough time to sit and learn how to do it! I do agree that standardizing our styles is a good idea. TomTheHand 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I... think I did it. Could everyone please look at User:TomTheHand/test? Kirill, does it look like I did it right? Everyone else, is this something we want to do? To me it's a little jarring, because I've used the old infoboxen for so long and I'm kind of stubborn about change. TomTheHand 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that looks right. You might want to add a valign to the first header in the career section, though; it looks a bit weird with the country name aligned at the top, since the flag size causes the row to stretch. Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to add a valign. I spent a few minutes just trying different stuff and didn't have any luck. Could you have a look at User:TomTheHand/Infobox Ship Career and see if you could insert the valign? TomTheHand 03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, that didn't work quite like I expected. Easy solution: I just added the correct alignment to the base style template. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill! I'd like to give WP:SHIPS members some time to look at it, and if there's no opposition I'll convert the real ship infobox in a few days. TomTheHand 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The new look from MILHIST to the Ship infobox looks great! Good work, gentlemen :-) Keallu 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi! I've been fooling around with various "Class-type" infobox templates (Template:Infobox_Class, Template:Infobox_Ship_Class and Template:Infobox_Ship_Characteristics that I know of) with the aim of merging them. To visualize, I put together User:Saintrain/S2/Tester2 where all 4 (including User:TomTheHand/Infobox_Ship_Characteristics) can be seen side-by-side. The real arguments are set to the formals; some, like "name" and "class", are quoted to distinguish them from template text.
I like the idea of making class infoboxes out of the same family of templates as ship infoboxes. We'd use {{Infobox Ship Image}} and {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}} for both, and come up with a new class-specific template that would be used in place of {{Infobox Ship Career}}. I'd definitely like to start up some discussion on what fields should go on class articles. I think {{Infobox Ship Class}} provides too little info, but {{Infobox Class}} is probably more info than I'd prefer. TomTheHand 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
One question: I haven't looked, but is there anything in the MILHIST framework that would be inappropriate for non-warships? The Mayflower and QE2 come to mind. How about a field like "Style MILHIST=[yes]". This might break the all-ships-look-alike thing, but was the Immer Essen really a warship?


On a different tack (:->), there have been several discussions about fitting specific ship-types into the generic template. This can be solved by making a few additional type-specific templates, something like
 ...
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics
|length=666
}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics U-Boot
|test depth=666
}}
 ...
or "Infobox Ship Characteristics Cruiseship", etc. Yes?No? The generic "Characteristics" template is just about right now. Adding templates would keep things simple and modular. --Saintrain
I don't think see the advantage to having type-specific templates over the current solution of only pasting in appropriate fields (for example, for a civilian ship, grabbing the civilian code from {{Infobox Ship Example}} which lacks rows for armament and whatnot). TomTheHand 18:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
One current/obvious advantage is that the U-Boot people could discuss their appropriate fields separate from (but happily included in, don't get me wrong) the Ship crowd in general and the Cruiseship (it's bound to happen) crowd in particular. No trade-offs between which is more important in an ever more bloated template, torpedo tubes vs swimming pools. Each ship class template would have its own advocates and experts. Decisions, therefore implementation, would happen more quickly. --Saintrain 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But I still don't see how that's an advantage over simply adding fields to the generic template but only pasting in appropriate fields. The ship template would support both torpedo tubes and swimming pools, but when you paste in the submarine code it wouldn't include the swimming pool line, and the cruise ship code would be missing the torpedo tube line. I'm really against fragmenting the ship template. It'll get harder to maintain and they'll all gradually become more and more different in appearance and functionality. TomTheHand 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I've misunderstood your comments, but it appeared that you objected to adding certain fields as too specific for the template. (I assume that we're talking about the new(?) composite "Begin+Image+Career[s]+Characteristics" templates as "the template".) So if one user wants a field and another objects, then what? An auxilliary template? It's not a fork, just an addition. (There are too many Class templates already, and even more in MIL???)
I have no objections to adding anything to the template. I'd like to see some of the fields in the other class templates (preceder, successor, etc) "appear" in Characteristics. Likewise no objection if those were added to an aux. --Saintrain 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were proposing additions instead of forks. I see where you're coming from now, and that does dispel some of my concerns. However, using additions means that we can't add a field in the middle even if it'd be more appropriate. I still think it's better to just add the field to the general template.
I do feel that we should try to limit excessively specific fields in the general template, but it's less about bloat and more about how I think infoboxes should be a place of general information. In my opinion, if User A wants a field and User B thinks it's too specific, the solution is not to find a way to add the field without annoying User B, it's to have a discussion to figure out if the field is really necessary and act based on consensus.
I completely agree that the number of class templates we have is inappropriate, and it's something we need to fix in the future. I would prefer to add class-specific fields to another aux, and really try to stop using the old class templates. TomTheHand 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've converted the ship infobox to MILHIST style. TomTheHand 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custom fields in new ship infobox

In the new ship infobox, it's possible to add custom fields using standard Wiki table syntax. I wouldn't really encourage doing this, because I think for the most part infoboxes should be standard, but I've written up some information about how to do it here. TomTheHand 21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New class template

I'd like to start this new thread so we can have a clean slate to discuss the creation of a new infobox for classes, which would integrate with the new individual ship templates.

Currently, to make an individual ship infobox, we use the following templates, in this order:

  1. {{Infobox Ship Begin}}
  2. {{Infobox Ship Image}}
  3. {{Infobox Ship Career}}
  4. {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}}

If we can come up with a new class-specific subtemplate to replace Career, we can use the other three templates as-is and consolidate a lot of code, with advantages in consistency and ease of maintenance. I'd love to call it Infobox Ship Class, but that one's taken, so we need suggestions.

We currently have two class templates:

  1. {{Infobox Ship Class}}
  2. {{Infobox Class}}

They can be compared at Saintrain's test page: User:Saintrain/S2/Tester2

In my opinion, Infobox Ship Class provides insufficient information, but Infobox Class goes a little overboard. I think the following fields are necessary:

  1. Builders
  2. Operators
  3. Preceding class
  4. Following class
  5. Service (a range of years from the beginning of the service of the first to the end of service of the last)

I think that Infobox Class's Ships In Class section is a good idea but needs work. When I've tried to put this template into ship class articles, I've wondered exactly what information I should be putting in each field (numbers? names of the ships?), I've been frustrated by the order that the fields are presented in, and I've often felt like I've had insufficient information to fill it in properly. I was thinking maybe the following fields, in this order, but not with these long, wordy names:

  1. Number of ships planned for future construction
  2. Number of ships currently under construction or fitting out but not yet in service
  3. Number of ships cancelled before completion
  4. Number of ships currently in service
  5. Number of ships sunk
  6. Number of ships in reserve
  7. Number of ships retired

Though perhaps we could do names instead of numbers, or both (start with a number, and then list the names). Any thoughts? TomTheHand 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


There's a new User:Saintrain/S2/Tester3 that demos an auxilliary "Ships In Class" template (the bottom of the 3rd column. The code is something like
{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{Infobox Ship Image}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics}}
{{User:Saintrain/S2/Infobox Ship Class Overview}}
I rather like it. (This is just a quick and dirty, re: args and labels etc. I just grabbed the stuff from SIC.)
I agree about only using it in a class article, but to each his own.
I'm still working on having a single "Characteristics" table that can be pulled into all ship articles, so having a separate "Ships In Class" template works very well for me.
(P.s. thanks for the "tl|" in "{{Infobox Ship Image}}". Lots fewer nowikis) Saintrain 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, though as I said above, I'd like to do some adding, subtracting, and shifting of fields. Ordering of the fields aside, I like the order that {{Infobox Class}} puts its sections in: Class Overview, Ships in Class, and then General Characteristics. TomTheHand 02:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template help

There are quite obviously a number of users gifted in the way of the template keeping an eye on this project, I wonder if any would be so good as to quickly browse Template:British Shipbuilders evolution and help me with 2 problems;

  1. How can I remove the white background around the blue area, so that it forms a homogeneous block.
  2. How can I get the template to add every page it is linked from to the category Category:British Shipbuilders Corporation - what I thought would do this doesn't.

Many thanks in advance, Emoscopes Talk 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the second issue, it's possible that it needs to propogate through the ether and we should just give it time. I'll look at the first, though if a true template expect sees this request for help, please check it out. I have no idea where to start. TomTheHand 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that what you had in mind? I don't think there's a way to remove the cell spacing from just the blue cells. TomTheHand 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no, it was really to make the blue area homogeneous, for visual appeal really. I think a blanket removal of borders affects the clarity between years and companies too much, no? Emoscopes Talk 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S, I hope you aren't offended that I reverted it back, I think it just loses too much clarity. Emoscopes Talk 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, no, not offended. I agree with you that removing the spacing completely sacrifices clarity. A real template expert might know how to just combine the blue fields, but it's beyond me. TomTheHand 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tfd assistance required

I have been working rather painstakingly on developing and improving the template Template:British Shipbuilders evolution, but appear to have incurred the wrath of a busybody who has listed it as "listcruft" at templates for deletion. I would appreciate any editors comments (positive or otherwise, if I am being too protective of my "baby" perhaps its about time I saw the light). I just feel rather mystified about it. In my more than humble opinion, as I express at Tfd, the template is clearly notable and far from just a list, and the individual proposing deletion has no other edit on WP - I can't help but let my suspicious mind think "sockpuppet". Emoscopes Talk 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in my two cents. I think it's an excellent template. Sockpuppetry seems obvious here; have any ideas as to who the puppetmaster may be? TomTheHand 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I really have NO idea, I don't think I've ever offended anyone on WP, and certainly never have intended to. I really should assume good faith, I just find it all too suspicious when what would appear to be a brand new user is so in tune with the inner workings and lingo of WP. Emoscopes Talk 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And why someone would have it in for something as offensive and controversial as a timeline of modern British shipbuilding just boggles the mind!! Many thanks for your support anyway :) Emoscopes Talk 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I can assume good faith about the nomination, but I can't believe that it's actually a new user. TomTheHand 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read up WP:SOCK, but I don't think there's much that can be done until the puppetmaster (if there is one) rears its ugly head. As it is, its a minor annoyance rather than blatant vandalism or personal attack and I'm happy to let it lie, but I shall keep one eye half open to it and see if anything else develops. Emoscopes Talk 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help with Balao class submarines

Hey all. I've been wanting for some time to work through the Balao class submarines and clean up their statistics, but I've run into some problems. Essentially, I'm looking for truly definitive information about the engines, motors, and batteries each boat carried. It seems that two different sets of engines and two different sets of motors were used, and I keep running into contradictory information because I think people see the information for one specific boat and assume it applies to the entire class. Does anyone have access to a definitive source, that we can be reasonably sure will be free of copy-and-paste issues? I friggin' bought Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines Through 1945: An Illustrated Design History, thinking that surely it would have that specific detail, because from what I remember of his destroyer volume it had that kind of info. Well, for the Balao class it has one set of information for the entire class. It's very specific about early submarines, giving the specific differences between boats nominally of the same class but built at different yards. However, it totally lumps the mass-produced fleet boats together.

The questions I'm looking to get answered are:

  1. What diesel engines, electric motors, and batteries were used on which submarines? I am tempted to just say the article Balao class submarine is correct, because it's so specific about its info, but my local university library does not have the source that the article references so I can't double-check.
  2. How powerful were the engines and motors? I don't think the two different sets of engines and motors were rated exactly the same. I think the General Motors engine was rated at 1,350 hp, but the Fairbanks-Morse engine was 1,600. I don't really know about the electric motors.

I would really appreciate any help anyone can offer. I don't think the Internet will help us here; it's going to take a trip to a serious library. Maybe I should just dumb down the propulsion sections of each article if I can't be sure of their factual accuracy. TomTheHand 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. According to "Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2" (1989), "Machinery: G.M., Fairbanks-Morse, or H.O.R. 2-stroke diesels. B.H.P: 6,500 BHP = 21 kts." That's all there is. I was surprised at the BHP but the other boats have comparable and it's the same as Gato. Want a scan of the page?
I've got "Conway's all the world's fighting ships, 1922-1946" (1980) on inter-library loan and will see what it says in the next few days. (It's a reference book.)
Who's H.O.R.? --Saintrain 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom. Sorry, real life intervened. According to "Conway's", Gato, Balao and Tench are all grouped together with identical specs: "Machinery: 2-shaft diesel-electrics plus electric motors, 5400shp/2740shp = 20.25kts/8.75kts". That's 1000HP less than "Jane's" but 1000 more than you had, so it all averages out. :->
Aint authoritative sources fun? --Saintrain 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
P.s. I just realized I didn't scan all the history page for the subs; only got the end. I've reserved the book til next week if you want copies. (I'm lucky. I've got the whole LA City and LA County Library systems' catalogues available to me a la web. That's how I got "Jane's" and "Conway's". (I've even got a request in for a mainenance manual for a LCVP!)
Yeah, you're pretty much exactly where I am ;-) "This source says they were 1,600 hp engines, that one says 1,350." The Navy says both the GM engines and the FM engines were rated at 1,600 apiece, and I consider that to be pretty authoritative. For the GM engine, it just gives the one 1,600 hp figure, but the FM engine has both "emergency" and "continuous" figures. The "emergency power" is 1,600 hp and the "continuous" is 1,280 hp.
Perhaps that emergency/continuous issue is the key here. Assuming that the GM figure is also "emergency" or "maximum" then we could be looking at the engines being run at 1,350 hp for long life, and the 5,400 total per boat is the correct figure to use.
I had someone tell me they were pretty sure that 1,600 was design horsepower, and 1,350 was after postwar fitting with snorkels, which were very restrictive. However, this guy says that 5,400 hp (1,350 each) was design horsepower, and snorkel horsepower was even less, 4610 hp. TomTheHand 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am having someone send me some very complete information on exactly which boats carried which engines, which will help clean that up, but I still don't know quite what to do about power. TomTheHand 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidated Ship Templates

I've tried to consolidate the Template:Infobox Class, Template:Infobox Ship Class and Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics templates and a have an almost-ready-for-prime-time Gilliam class attack transport to show it off.

I just wanted to get all the data on one (set of) template and don't really care about the order or wording. (Some of the fields aren't applicable so just have the argument name in as a placeholder.) (I put the blue bar on top because it makes the crummy old picture look better, but I kinda like it.) And the recent change to MILHIST style isn't reflected.

Comments of the kind, generous variety are always welcome. --Saintrain 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work! When you feel like it's ready, please let us know, as I'd like to put in my two cents about possibly removing and reordering some class-related fields. I talked about it a little bit above already. It's much easier to discuss that after there's an example to talk about, but much harder to make changes after it's been applied to a bunch of different pages, so it'd be really cool if we could get a prototype working and discuss the best way to proceed with it. I promise I'll give prompt input and not drag my feet! TomTheHand 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I meant that the article wasn't quite ready for live. The new template is ready to be shredded. I guess I should give some details. For this class-article infobox I'm using 4 templates:
The 3 styles can be viewed side-by-side at User:Saintrain/S2/Tester4.
Also see "Maintaining centralized "Infobox Ship Characteristics" template databases" below. --Saintrain 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining centralized "Infobox Ship Characteristics" template databases

The infobox template, Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics, is used to describe the general physical characteristics of the ships in a particular class. Since it contains (mostly) the same data for each ship in the class, only one copy of the data need be maintained and can be used in all the articles for ships of that class.

This is quite easily accomplished. The usual scheme is something like

  {| {{Infobox Ship Begin}}
    ...
  {{Infobox Ship Characteristics
  |  class = ''Gilliam'' attack transport
  |  length = 426 feet
    ...
  }} 
    ... 
  |}

By creating an article/file, say, "Gilliam attack transport characteristics" that looks like

  {{Infobox Ship Characteristics
  |  class = ''Gilliam'' attack transport
  |  length = 426 feet
    ...
  }}

any articles referencing the data would look like

  {| {{Infobox Ship Begin}}
    ...
  {{Gilliam attack transport characteristics}}  
    ...
  |}

As an example, User:Saintrain/S2/GCAT Characteristics is an article/file that "calls" Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics with all the pertinent data for a Gilliam class attack transport. This file is transcluded into both Gilliam class attack transport (an article describing the ships in the class) and USS Barrow (APA-61) (an article on a ship of the class).

This looks great. In the past we've occasionally used templates to populate certain fields. For example, every ship of a class might use {{whatever class ship armament}} to populate their armament fields. That had its advantages, but it had a lot of problems as well. This is an awesome solution, as it cleans up ship articles considerably while also putting the characteristics in one place instead of scattered across ten tiny templates.
I have one suggestion. When we use this, perhaps we could make an effort to include comment telling editors how to modify the characteristics. For example:
<!-- To edit this ship's characteristics, please go to Template:Gilliam attack transport characteristics -->
That comment won't be visible in the article, but it will be seen by editors, and it will provide some guidance to editors who aren't familiar with templates and transclusion. TomTheHand 17:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Project banner changes

I see we had some bold editing of the {{WikiProject Ships}} banner. Editors should note the new class (rating) and importance parameters. If an article had been rated/reviewed "class" will need to be set as rated. The dual images that symbolize the dual scope of the project: naval and civilian ships, as well as old and new, were added back. --J Clear 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we'll need to put together a couple of pages regarding the assessment process then, as links are provided to currently non-existent pages on the revised template...Martocticvs 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future ship commissionings

In a table listing ships under constructions, with dates of laying down / launching etc., would it be correct to say "commissioning" or "commissioned" if none of ships are due to commission for another 2 years at the earliest? Does one go with the correct use of language (i.e. future tense) or some sort of undefined convention that ships can only be "commissioned"? Emoscopes Talk 10:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Ships_0033.html"