Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
January 2004 to April 2005 April 2005 to January 2006 January 2006 to June 2006 June 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to November 2006 November 2006 to January 2007

Contents 1 Dealing with missing ship history 2 Template USS 3 Ships by navy rename discussion on CFD 4 Rename of modern ships to active ships 5 Shipyards? 6 Can anyone make US Naval Jacks? 6.1 Which Jack? 6.2 Always use ensigns? 7 Homeport 7.1 Homeports 8 User reverting ship edits 9 Master vs Assistant Master 10 Ship page title inconsitencies 11 Where do ships of the line end and battleships begin? 12 New USN flag template 13 Discussion conerning the merge of duplicate articles 14 US Navy Ship Seals 14.1 Got it 14.2 new link 15 Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk 16 Template Otherships 17 infobox warship template 18 CFD for Greek era categories 19 Article discussion page notice 20 CFD on Hellenic Navy ships/Ships of the Hellenic Navy 21 Shipbuilders revisited 22 Londonderry/Derry 23 Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson 24 Jon-Eastham.co.uk (Shipping Photos from Portsmouth, UK) 25 Pre-revolution Russian ships 26 Project directory 27 Template:Royal Navy ships 28 Red Oak Victory 29 Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk 30 Recommissionings in infobox 30.1 Complicated table

Dealing with missing ship history

It seems likely that we won't have operational histories of SSBN any time soon. And there seems to be a mish-mash of ways of dealing with the gap on SSBN articles, from ignoring it to visible remarks in the article like insert 4 years of history here. Seems worth constructing a template to explain the large history gaps in the articles. Something like {{missing-boomer-hist}}, which could read The operational history of submarine nuclear deterrent patrols has not been released by the US Navy.

Is it worth making the tag more generic or another tag to account for ships with large histoy gaps after the end of their DANFS data? Frequently there will be history up to the end of the DANFS data and then some decomissioning date from the NVR. Probably a different template since this is also common. Like {{danfs-gap-stub}}, The operational history of this ship is missing after the last DANFS update, (usual help wikipedia stub line here).

Do both cases represents a special sort of {{sect-stub}}? The former might not fall into the "stub" concept as the data simply isn't available. The latter probably should be considered a stub. --J Clear 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template USS

Being lazy, typing [[USS Foobar (IX-13)|USS ''Foobar'' (IX-13)]] to link to a ship always struck me as twice the work I needed to be doing. So I did something about it and created {{USS}}. Now you can type {{USS | Foobar | IX-13}} (e.g. USS Iowa (BB-61)). Omit the second parameter to link to ship indexes (e.g USS Iowa) or such unique vessels as USS Constitution. I finally got fed up while editing List of Victory ships, so you can see some real examples there. It should be trivial to copy it for other ship prefixes (e.g. HMS), but I'd like others to take a look at and use it first. If useful, I'll write it up on the project page. --J Clear 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite ready for prime time as it inserts a break afterward. :( --J Clear 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK fixed that, bring on the next bug. --J Clear 00:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. Jinian 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ships by navy rename discussion on CFD

Joshbaumgartner has proposed a rename of the Ships by navy categories to achieve consistency. Please use the following link to weigh in on what format should be used ((Navy name) ships or Ships of the (navy name)):

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 25#Ships by Navy categories

As you'll see, I prefer using Ships of (navy name), but will change my vote near the end of the discussion period if there's a majority in favor of (navy name) ships but a lack of clear consensus. To me, consistency is more valuable than adoption of my preferred scheme; I hope some other folks will feel the same way. TomTheHand 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in full agreement with that, and I've said as much on the other page. Martocticvs 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename of modern ships to active ships

I know I promised I'd do this last week, but the size of the project intimidated me. I've finally done it. Please go here and vote:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 27#Modern_ships

Everyone's participation would be appreciated! It'll only take a moment. TomTheHand 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shipyards?

Several weeks ago there was some discussion here or in a related place about compiling a list of shipyards. Can anybody help me find it? Lou Sander 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone make US Naval Jacks?

We could really use additional versions of Image:US Naval Jack.svg. As you can see, the naval jack is the star portion of the US flag. The jack changes when the number of stars change. If we have a member who can manipulate SVG images, could he or she create different naval jacks based on the flags here?

We already have Image:US Naval Jack 34 stars.svg, Image:US Naval Jack 35 stars.svg, and Image:US Naval Jack 36 stars.svg, which cover us for the Civil War and set out a naming scheme for future flags.

The one we desperately need is a 48 star jack. The US flag had 48 stars from 1912 to 1960. That means all of our naval jacks for American ships of both world wars are wrong. If nothing else, we need that one. TomTheHand 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This was my first attempt at making an SVG, and I used a text editor and firefox browser for preview. I didn't consult any specs for the 48 star flag, so spacing from edges is probably not centered and may not be to US Flag specs. --Dual Freq 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, only 5 rows, sixth row is off the bottom, let me fix it first. Dual Freq 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, its fixed for 6 rows, man I feel embarrassed. May have to refresh to clear browser cache to view. -Dual Freq 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd be willing to do more at some point, that would be great! I would suggest going here and looking at the duration that each flag was used, then prioritizing based on how long they were used and stopping when you're bored ;-) I would also place a certain priority on the more recent ones, simply because we have more articles on 20th century ships than we do on older ones. The 48 star one was by far the most important, though, and I really appreciate it. TomTheHand 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That one is probably the easiest one because of the symmetry, but despite the ease, it's still not symmetrical. Shows what I know about mathematics. I'll try to fix it later, but I have another non-wiki project I need to finish first. --Dual Freq 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Take your time, and thanks again. I'm really not too worried about having it be perfect right now; it's more important to me that we have something that I can put onto ship articles. Something you might want to try is just stealing the star portion from the flags found at Flag of the United States. They're all public domain, so you're free to do so, and from what I understand of SVG you could resize it however's best and not lose detail. TomTheHand 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much. That was quick. If anyone finds that the spacing may not be quite right, please edit it, but I'll start placing this jack on the articles that require it. TomTheHand 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh nooooooooo! Over 2000 pages link to the 50 star jack and on each page an individual decision needs to be made as to whether a 48 star jack would be more appropriate! What have I gotten myself into? TomTheHand 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your dedication and patience are greatly appreciated, see you in a few months. :) And in a few places the 48 star flag was used since there was no 48 star jack. So there's more to do. Did we build a lot of ships in WWII or what? Yamamoto was right. I'll give you a hand later this weekend. --J Clear 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad news, there's also a metric boatload of ships that use Image:USN-Jack.png, another 50 star Jack. If we're checking them anyway, might as well replace with the appropriate SVG Jack. --J Clear 19:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been focusing on Image:USN-Jack.png in order to kill two birds with one stone (replace raster images with vector images, and fix incorrect uses of 50 star jacks), and I've gotten it down to "just" 650. This sucks! The USN flag template makes it easier, though. TomTheHand 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to break the redirect at US Navy jack and have an article there like the US Flag one that diagrams the changes over the years. Obviously the original and present jacks would link to First Navy Jack. Or perhaps FNJ is short enough to be merged in the process. --J Clear 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. You can see all the available Jacks at US Navy Jack (as well as what's missing). That page assumes the Jack changed at the same time as the National Ensign. --J Clear 03:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who knows when the Jack is flown (e.g.: underway, or at anchor too?) please edit that page. Thanks. --J Clear 03:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that one. Moored and anchored but not underway per SM 1&C and BMR. Added refs too, those are on tpub, but they are PD-USGov-USNavy, otherwise tpub wouldn't have been able to copy them in the first place. --Dual Freq 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. While tweaking First Navy Jack, I realized that the first flag on US Navy Jack should probably just be the 13 stripes, no snake or text. Is there such an image or can someone make one? --J Clear 12:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Jack?

I had a feeling this would come up, I noted USS Alliance (1877) is listed for cleanup above. Obviously the 50 star Jack is wrong, but what Jack to give it? Do we use the jack at time of decomissioning, or what the ship used during its most notable period or action. --J Clear 12:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Should lend lease ships that were never comissioned in the USN (but property of), even show a US Jack in the articles? For example, I'm inclined to remove the US Ensign on HMS Battler (D18), rather than change it to the new 48 star Jack. --J Clear 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been using the jack at the time of decommissioning, since it's at least more correct than using the 50 star jack all the time. I did make a mistake with Oriskany, which you pointed out; thanks for noticing! Trying to do it by most notable period/action makes sense, but it's so subjective. I'd rather use a technique that I can do quickly, looking at decommission dates, and if someone wants to change it later that's cool with me. TomTheHand 18:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with decommissioning date as the first order "rule", also that you're making things better that way. I've pondered some exceptions or second order rules: --J Clear 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Lend-lease returns to USN

they seem not to have been under USN commission (after return), so not really an exception.--J Clear 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• In reserve-in commission vessels that were decommisioned under a different flag

• Not quite active, but in commission vessels (e.g. USS Constitution, HMS Victory)

These exceptions will likely be self evident. --J Clear 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Vessels with notable service under one jack and some twilight time under a newer one

I haven't convinced myself this should be an exception. --J Clear 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a convention for the use of any Navy's jacks in Wiki? I think they were limited to use while in port. As a non-US person, I've found the use of the USN jack confusing as it soesn't immediately indicate nationality to me (and perhaps to others). In most cases, we have used ensigns, eg, the Royal Navy's White Ensign or the US ensign, but jacks are used to clarify nationality, eg, Royal Canadian Navy (which otherwise used the White Ensign) and Royal Netherlands Navy (there's a plethora of flags with horizontal bands). Another point, if the USN jack is used, it should have a border, otherwise it's unsatisfactory against a dark blue background. Folks at 137 07:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ship table}} has a "Ship country" field which is often left blank, and has been filled in an inconsistent manner (e.g.: U.S., (US), USA), but was intended to indicate the country to someone unfamiliar with the jacks. I added some suggested guidelines to the project page on selecting a Jack for the infobox. Those should be reviewed and if consensus is reached, then we have a convention. --J Clear 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships? If so, I can't find the suggested guidelines you mention: just the highly useful table of ensigns and jacks (deepest thanks to the author). My basic argument is that the US ensign is much more immediately recognisable than the US jack, which, thru my ignorance, I took to be a formatting problem! Folks at 137 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables#Choose an ensign or jack. I forgot it was on a project sub-page. --J Clear 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the guidelines and I disagree strongly with "The jack is preferred if available." I would suggest "Choice of jack or ensign should conform to current custom and should be the flag that is most recognisable to readers." The points are that 1} almost every RN (for example) ship article uses the White Ensign and the change overhead is unnecessary; 2) jacks are limited to use in port and so are not always flown; 3) some jacks are not familiar to most readers (as opposed to editors)(eg the USN jack). I've already pointed out that in some cases, the jack is preferable. Folks at 137 15:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree; I would change the policy in exactly that way. We should try to be consistent, though. If we want to use the RN's ensign for RN articles but the US flag for USN articles, that's fine and is probably an improvement. However, we should try to specify the exact flag to be used for each country and post it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns so that everyone can copy and paste into articles as appropriate. I'd prefer not to leave it to the judgement of editors but rather to put our heads together and come up with one single flag for each navy. TomTheHand 15:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Way back when, the decision was made to go with the flag of the organization, in preference to that of the nation. This allows distinctions among, e.g., the USN, USCG, and CSN, the RN, RFA, RMAS, etc., and the various German navies. This seems like a useful distinction to me. While the nationality of a flag may not be obvious on first encounter, that ought to be made clear in the text of the article. Of course, some navies apparently don't have a distinct flag. (And in some cases, you've got to wonder what the flag designers were smoking.)

—wwoods 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What about specifying always using the ensign instead of the jack? The ensign is flown while the ship is both in port and underway, while the jack is only flown in port; it seems like the ensign is the better choice. For the USN, I believe the ensign is the US flag, but the ensign of the USCG is different and so is that of the CSN. TomTheHand 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I rushed my above response out without reading that all of this had been discussed before. Sorry for not reading your link. Still, I think the ensign really is the best choice; yes, it's the national flag too for the US, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not like all the services use the same ensign, so the distinction is still made. TomTheHand 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Too bold.... Well at least we should hammer out some guidelines, rather than just "use one of the following jacks on ensigns".--J Clear 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also can we list the preferred flags as a text table with the image link text to cut and paste, w/o actually displaying the image? The present display of all the flag images should go a list page somewhere as a reference as scrolling through it is a pain, especially with two of the larger navies near the bottom. Or perhaps break it down by continent.--J Clear 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This subject doesn't matter much to me, but I must say that the USN jack with stars on a blue background isn't a very exciting graphic. At first I thought it was just a decoration, and it was a long time before I figured out what it was. Lou Sander 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Always use ensigns?

Alright, so it's sort of up in the air as to whether we should always use ensigns or use jacks sometimes. wwoods noted that this was discussed some years ago, but no really definite consensus emerged. Here are the two sides as I see them:

• Always use ensigns
• Decide whether to use an ensign or a jack depending on which is different from the national flag
  • For example, the Royal Navy has a distinct ensign but uses the Union Jack as its jack. Therefore the ensign should be used.
  • On the other hand, the United States Navy uses the US Flag as its ensign, but has a distinct jack . Therefore the jack should be used.

I believe we should always use ensigns. Jacks are only flown while the ship is not underway, so I think the ensign is more representative of what would be flying from the ship. I also believe they are also more recognizable: many people wouldn't recognize the USN's First Naval Jack, and many do not recognize the old jack either. I also don't believe that it's necessary to require a symbol that is distinct from the national flag. Confusion between, for example, the USN and the USCG isn't possible; though the USN uses the US flag as its ensign, the Coast Guard has its own distinct ensign.

I'd really like to achieve some kind of resolution on this issue, because I don't want to proceed with a project to update flags on ship articles without knowing whether to use jacks or ensigns. I'll cross-post this at the Maritime Military History Task Force to get more input. TomTheHand 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through the whole discussion on this, and the previous discussion linked above, and I would say really it makes most sense to use just the ensign. The ensign is the symbol of the navy, because that is the flag chosen for the navy to fly on her ships at sea. The fact that a few ensigns happen to be the same as the national flag shouldn't really enter in to things. The current situation seems to be use the ensign in all cases except where it is the same as the national flag, in which case use the jack just because it looks different - that's not very logical or very... encyclopædical. Consistency is the most important thing really. Martocticvs 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see with the blanket "use the ensign" recommendation is Canada. Until the 1960s, some Commonwealth navies (Australia, NZ & Canada) used the RN's white ensign. This lead to a loss of national identity & they all obtained their own ensigns. Canada alone, however, had a distinctive jack - and I've used this recently for Canadian ships. There may be other exceptions. Maybe "use ensigns unless there's a consensus to do otherwise. Otherwise, I agree with TomTheHand & I'd accept the ensign rule. Folks at 137 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if there is a valid reason that will stand up to debate not to use an ensign, then that would probably be ok. But these should be exceptional cases in my opinion, and kept to the absolute minimum. As long as the decision isn't based on what looks nicest, or just looking different from the national flag then its probably a good reason... Martocticvs 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair. Folks at 137 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming one wants to use the ensign or jack appropriate for the era of service, then it is much easier to distinguish between the 48 and 50 star US Navy Jacks than the corresponding ensigns. If the "Ship country" parameter is filled in, then there is not really a problem with not knowing what the US Jack is. In fact having the Jack next to "Career USA" should be educational. Also I believe the US Ensign is used by the US Merchant fleet (if they all haven't reflagged in Liberia). But I can see the point of the Commonwealth vessels, too. Sounds like one size doesn't fit all. --J Clear 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the above reasons to use jacks. I really don't see this need to make sure that ensigns distinguish one country or service from another. Instead, I think we should focus solely on what is most representative of what would be flying from the ship. In all cases, this is the ensign. TomTheHand 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of an ensign / jack on the page is as a visual national identifier, is it not? The infobox is neither a jackstaff or ensignstaff in my opinion, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to using one or t'uther. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Folks at 137 has the right idea here - use the ensign in all cases bar those where confusion is possible. There is no way you could confuse the US flag for any other, so the US ensign should be used for those ships (the appropriate one though - people can click on the little flag to see the full size version after all). For those instances where confusion is possible, such as with commonwealth navies during the war, perhaps further discussion is needed. Should those use the jacks, or should they use the white ensign? Martocticvs 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ensign does not distuguish between US Navy, US Merchant Marine, or US recreational craft and I suspect all other US Government vessels except the USCG and its Auxillary. On the other hand, the Union Jack is the same for USN and USCG.--J Clear 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not both? It's not like there isn't room. Both flags are "information about the ship", the point of the infobox. I'm not advocating a massive edit right now, just going forward. Of course it could take us days to decide if the Ensign or Jack goes on the right. --J Clear 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Homeport

I always thought a homeport was a town or port, not a base, but this edit would contradict that. This would tend to support it. Comments? --J Clear 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While I was in the USN, my homeport was Mayport, referring to Naval Station Mayport rather than the nearly non-existent, one-stop sign town of Mayport, Florida. Usually, when talking to non-navy folks, I would just say Jacksonville, since most people are not familiar with Mayport. I know it's only anecdotal, so take it however you'd like. --Dual Freq 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sub section above from User talk:J Clear. --J Clear 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, back in the 1960s, some ships were said to be home ported at Little Creek, VA, which is a base and not a municipality. I've always regarded home port as a sort of unofficial designation, though I don't know why. Back in WWII, the ships in the Pacific seemed to go in and out of all kinds of west coast ports, with none of them really as "home." Lou Sander 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I note you did not say you were homeported in Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, but rather Little Creek. I look on that as the name of the port, even if there is no municipalilty named that. I guess the question is, is that just conversational shorthand? You'd think if that were the case, the Navy's homeport list would spell it out. Outside the navy, the homeport is often painted on the stern. I have yet to see a facility or dockyard specified. For instance Titanic's homeport of Liverpool, never been there, but I imagine it has more than one facility. --J Clear 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User reverting ship edits

A user is reverting edits to ship articles. Please look at Rebecca's contributions list at least back to 23 September. I believe the original edits improve the articles and the reverts make the articles worse. I do not want to undo the reverts myself but other editors may wish to do so. bobblewik 10:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Master vs Assistant Master

I've been working on the Joseph Hazelwood article and I've run into a bit of a snag. The NTSB report for the Exxon Valdez incident states that he was the Assistant Master when first assigned to Valdez. I'm not familiar with merchant marine and civil sailing roles/ranks so I was wondering if anyone could clarify this as it raised a question during the GA process. I have only two guesses, one, an A and B crew like SSBN's have with two separate crews and one submarine since tankers only make money while hauling product and would be underway more than a single crew could tolerate. My second theory would be like a CO / XO relationship, although I think the XO role is filled by First mate. If anyone knows, or has a net source I can use in the article, I would appreciate it. Feel free to add it to the article, here or on Talk:Joseph Hazelwood. Thanks. --Dual Freq 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ship page title inconsitencies

There are a few ships (sometimes famous ones, sometimes not) whose page titles are not consistent with all the others. I'll just pick HMS Victory as an example. She's a very famous ship, but surely the page title should be 'HMS Victory (1765)' - with a redirect from the current page as that's what people would probably type in. Is this something we should perhaps look at altering? Martocticvs 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The (1765) would be to disambiguate Victory from earlier and later (although that is not relevant in this case) ships called Victory. As you say, Victory is a very famous ship, and for that reason HMS Victory links there, there is no need to disambiguate it from other Victorys which are far more obscure, that is done on the page HMS Victory (disambiguation). Emoscopes ^Talk 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be consistent with WP:D, where there is an agreed primary meaning to a dab topic, the "primary article" will have no disambiguation addons in its title. The first line of such article is a link to the dab page similar to Victory's. Consider these exceptional exceptions as proving the rule. --J Clear 23:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do ships of the line end and battleships begin?

I'm looking through Category:Royal Navy battleships and wondering where ships of the line end and battleships begin, from a categorization standpoint. Is it iron armor? An iron hull? Steam power? Turreted main armament? All four? HMS Agamemnon (1852) was the first ship of the line/battleship built from the ground up with steam power. La Gloire was the first iron-armored ship of the line/battleship. HMS Warrior (1860) had the first iron hull. HMS Monarch (1868) was the first ocean-going warship with turreted armament. HMS Devastation (1871) essentially introduced the "pre-Dreadnought" layout. I'd kind of like to call Devastation the dividing line. TomTheHand 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No precise definition - OED basically considers them synonyms, both derived from "line-of-battle ship". First cite of "ship of the line" is from 1706, first cite of "battleship" is 1794. Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea proposes wood->iron as dividing line, and calls Warrior the "first true battleship", dissing Gloire as merely plates over a wooden hull. If Devastation is the divide, then you have to call Warrior a "ship of the line", which sounds a little odd. Stan 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't really count Warrior as a ship of the line though, even if the term were relevant (which it most likely is in her case) - she's more of a very heavy frigate, though she would have been very capable of standing in the line of battle all the same. I think you have to use the term to mean a type of ship, rather than the purpose. Old ships of the line still existed as late as the second world war, although were used only as store ships (possibly prison hulks as well) by then. It probably makes the most sense to take the removal of the broadside battery in favour of turrets as the change-over, and apply the term battleship only to ships of that configuration. Martocticvs 10:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary of looking for a single point transition between "ships of the line" and "battleships", the flowchart in Breyer shows that this is a rather convoluted and time-consuming process. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, transitional ships should be put into both battleships and a traditional category? As Martocticvs mentions, though, Warrior had all of her guns on one deck and so is probably better considered a frigate. That was also the case for La Gloire.

Or should we have additional categories? Call Devastation the first "battleship", or specifically call her a "pre-Dreadnought battleship", call Warrior, Gloire and similar ships "broadside ironclads", and call Monarch and similar "turret ironclads"? TomTheHand 13:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, its along the lines of what is in Breyer. Sounds like the sort of thing that really needs its own article though! Types of battleship or something similar. Remember that Warrior is not an Iron clad, though, she is an iron hulled and plated ship :) Emoscopes ^Talk 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think "ironclad" exclusively meant wooden ships with iron armor; I thought the term could be applied to ships like Warrior as well. Our ironclad article includes iron-hulled ships. Can you think of a better term? TomTheHand 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Warrior is not of composite construction and is therefore not an ironclad as I understand the definition of the term. I think it is important to distuingish her from the "literal" ironclads; wooden built ships with wrought iron armouring. Warrior was something of a step forward in being an iron hulled and framed ship with an armoured battery (of wrought iron). Breyer refers to it as an "armour-clad battery ship". Naturally, these are definitions applied by the author retrospectively and I'm sure other references would give other terms. Emoscopes ^Talk 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Warrior has a lot more in common with Gloire than she has with Devastation. An iron hull didn't change things as much as iron armor or turreted armament, and iron-hulled ships were build alongside wooden-hulled ironclad ships for some time. Our ironclad page lumps them together. I'd like to be able to categorize such ships together. I don't much like "armour-clad battery ship", as it doesn't really describe the arrangement of the battery; I think the broadside arrangement needs to be mentioned. TomTheHand 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was looking over List of battleships of the Royal Navy and I like the distinctions it makes but I'm lost as to how to translate them into adequate category titles. I also feel like an "ocean-going" distinction should be made; I don't think coast defense ships are battleships. TomTheHand 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All valid points, but then you have to ask, where does a coast defence ship end and an ocean going battleship begin? I think that would be inventing categories for the sake of it. Most, if not all, of these curious designs of the mid-1800s never saw any form of combat and are notabele purely for curiosities sake and had severe inherent limitations as a result of their sacrafices in one area or another (e.g freeboard and HMS Captain) . For me, it is suffice to say that the evolution of the capital ship between 1850 and 1890 is far too complex a subject to be conveniently pigeonholed into categories. I don't see what's wrong with sticking them in with battleships or ships of the line. What is more pressing is an authoratative article on the evolution of the battleship from Gloire through to Dreadnought. As far as I see it, that's where all the nitty gritty of "wrought-iron clad central breastwork monitors" should be hammered out. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're right; what I'll do is use iron armor as the distinction and not try to make it any finer than that. If it's armored, I'll slap a battleship category on it, and a ship-of-the-line category may be appropriate as well. If it's not, it's a ship-of-the-line (or frigate, etc, as appropriate). I agree about the need for an article about all of this, but I'm ill-equipped to write it; my knowledge is pretty limited to 1880-1890 and up. TomTheHand 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of good stuff in Sigmund Breyer, although the book is pretty confusingly laid out. It does however have a good flowchart and some goot diagrams highlighting the important advances and the multitude of intermediate battleship types, all with real-life examples. I think a good title for such an article might be Evolution of the battleship Emoscopes ^Talk 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New USN flag template

I've developed a new template for inserting an ensign/jack for the USN into infoboxes. All you do is type:

• {{USN flag|(year)}}

For example, if a ship decommissioned in 1949, you'd type {{USN flag|1949}} into the spot for the jack and get , the 48 star jack. If we decide to use ensigns in the future instead of jacks, all we have to do is change the template, so you can use this template onto all USN ships now. We can then change our minds back and forth on the ensign/jack issue and flip the template from one to the other in a moment. If you don't put a year (for example: {{USN flag}}), it'll default to the current jack, though I can change that default if we want.

There are a few issues to deal with. First, this is my first time writing a complex template, and it's crap. I put all the code on one line because when I broke it up nicely it was actually inserting a bunch of line breaks!

Second, and this is important: new flags were not introduced on the first of the year. New stars would be added to the flag on the July 4th following a state's admission. Most recently, the USN has switched to all ships using the First Navy Jack, and that switch happened on May 31st, 2002.

I wanted the use of the template to be simple, so it just accepts a year. If a flag change occurred, the template will use the newest flag from the year. If a ship decommissioned before the flag change date of a year, feed the previous year to the template. For example, on July 4, 1960 the 50th star was added to the US flag. If a ship decommissioned on May 1, 1960, feed 1959 into the template to get the 49-star flag!

Please ask any questions, give comments, tell me your concerns! Thanks! TomTheHand 21:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You can probably insert line breaks if you comment them out:
stuff}}<!--
-->{{more stuff

—wwoods 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That did the job. There are line breaks in the code now. I'm currently pondering how to implement letting a user optionally specify a width for the flag. If no width is specified, the default would be the width appropriate for a ship infobox, but a bigger or smaller size could be specified. I'd like to try to get that done by the end of the day. TomTheHand 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you can also use <includeonly> and <noinclude> to control line breaks. I've seen the comment trick used when using a template to supress a break in the article.--J Clear 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok! The template is now capable of accepting an additional optional input: width in pixels.

• {{USN flag|(years)|(width)}}

Here are some example uses:

• {{USN flag}} gives , the current jack, in infobox size.
• {{USN flag|1945}} gives , the jack as used in 1945, in infobox size.
• {{USN flag|1865|20}} gives , the 1865 jack 20 pixels wide.

There is no way to specify just a width. TomTheHand 15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One more note: The template automatically inserts a one-pixel-wide white border around the jack, so that it shows up clearly in the blue area of an infobox. TomTheHand 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One note, if the template is going to be used on a large number of pages, it might be worth checking out Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Protection will prevent someone from changing the images to something offensive and having that change repeated on hundreds of other pages. I don't know what the threshold for protection is, but Template:DANFS is protected because of it's inclusion in over 3500 ship articles. --Dual Freq 23:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't really thought of that. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to the template, it'd be good to hear them now so that Wikipedia doesn't take the performance hit of changes in the future. I'm an admin, so once this template is used on a large number of pages I'll protect it. TomTheHand 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion conerning the merge of duplicate articles

Hello. I found Hoy (boat) and Hoy (ship) while randomnly selecting articles from the Category:Articles to be merged backlog. I assume that they are duplicate articles and need to be merged (with a redirect from one to the other). I do not know, however, which article should be the main article and which article should be the redirect. Please consider reading and researching the two articles and then discussing the proposed merger at this link. Thank you. --Iamunknown 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think boat would be the preferred term in this case. Because the subject is from the Age of Sail, the term 'ship' should be used for vessels that are ship-rigged - obviously a hoy was not, so boat is a much better term. Martocticvs 23:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

US Navy Ship Seals

I just noticed a new article at US Navy Ship Seals. Seeing how there are hundreds of USN ships which have seals, and most of them are discussed on the corresponding article page for the ship, I don't see the need for this. However, before nominating for deletion, I'd like to know if I'm missing something or if others see this as an odd article.

Perhaps if is was more about ship heraldy (if that's the right term), then it would make some sense to me.

Thoughts? Jinian 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It kind of seems like an unnecessary article to me, but I'm far from knowledgeable on such matters. I've never heard the word "seals" used to describe these things. Many, if not most, ships seem to have them, but I don't really know where they come from. That would be good info to have in this article. I don't think this article should try to show individual seals/plaques/patches, because there are so many of them. NavSource Online has tons of illustrations -- a patch often is shown at the top of a ship's article there. Lou Sander 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a rather odd article, but I think if anyone is capable of writing it, an article on naval heraldry could be a good idea, there are certain rules and conventions for Royal Navy ship's crests that could be covered, it's in the same theme of things as figurehead etc. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good oportunity to cooperate with the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. I find such a topic interesting at least. Inge 09:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While of course I don't believe we should have an article detailing the hundreds of ship seals of the USN, I do think an article describing what ship seals are and their history, and providing some examples, would be a good idea. The article is currently a stub but I could see potential for a good article about the subject. TomTheHand 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the article and as you see the use of seals are somewhat special to the US Navy. Other navies typically use coats of arms so a separate page on the US tradition in addition to a general Naval heraldry (or similar) article might be good. Inge 12:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls them "seals." The official U.S. Navy COMNAVSURFOR site calls them "crests." Do we have a reference for "seals?" Surely there exists some information about the creation and maintenance of these things. Where is our reference? I agree that there could be a good article on this subject, but I think that our start is pretty weak and original-research-like so far. Lou Sander 12:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Crest (heraldry) explains that the word crest is often mistakenly applied to a coat of arms. Allthough even in the Norwegian Navy where ships have proper coats of arms (and Norwegian is the common language) such emblems are commonly referred to by the word crest. The United States Army Institute of Heraldry is the regulating authority on heraldic matters in the US military. I don't know if there is a separate department for the Navy. Inge 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started asking around about this subject. Here are some early answers:

---

Sir,

I recently did a precom and shipyard personnel have the POCs for artists to assist in the development. PCU crew has the most influence on the crest and motto.

I think there was a BIG Navy approval somewhere in the process but I'm not sure how long that took. I think it was mostly a formality.

---

Shipbuilding Project Manager (PMS XXX) typically contracts with the Department of Army Heraldry for artistic support and initial research. The CO and whoever else chosen provides recommendations and gets to work with the artist of design. The motto is typically provided by someone or if a repeat naming, a no brainer. Recommend contacting SUPSHIP Gulf Coast or Bath, Maine....sorry don't have my phone directory handy....

---

More to come, I hope... Lou Sander 15:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The name should presumably be changes to "U.S. Navy ship crests", or coats-of-arms, or whatever. —wwoods 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it MoS convention to call thing "something" of "something else", e.g. Ship crests of the United States Navy? Emoscopes ^Talk 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a question over at [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology#Ship_crests|the Heraldy project]. Hopefully we can get some expertise on this subject. I like the idea of an article about how a ship's crest is developed, designed, used, etc. A compliation of crests seems like a bad idea. Jinian 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi all. Glad to see you found this article interesting. I was the one who wrote it (and hope it's not considered bad form for me to say so. :-))

By the way, just to respond to the first point, above, my observation is that most wikipedia ship articles do notinclude that ship's seal. I added one myself, to the article for USS Carl Vinson. Anyway, happy to see this discussion on the significance of US NAvy Ship Seals (or crests). I too consider them worthy of exploration. The NAvy certainly does seem to consider them a worthy means of expressing each ship's history, namesake, etc, etc.

As far as nomenclature, I will gladly defer to the group consensus. I do believe I saw the word "seal" used in at least a few instances. If I can find links for this, i will do so. Thanks again for all your great ideas and input. see you. --Sm8900 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not bad form to say you wrote it. We knew that already from the article's history. But, as you may have gathered, this isn't about you :).

I believe the proper place for these crests/seals is on the appropriate ship's article, rather than a conglomeration of them in one huge article. Perhaps you can take the first edit at changing the article to being about the crests, their significance, who designs them, etc., rather than a simple collection of them. Let me know if you'd like some help with this. Jinian 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi jinian. (Inserting my reply here just to make it more readable.) Thanks, I appreciate that. And I do realize that comments on an article are not considered a reflection on the first or any other contributor. Actually, always nice to see a good discussion taking place. See you. --Sm8900 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also can't see much point to this page... if it is assumed that all ships have a seal/crest/badge, then the logical place to look for them should be on the pages for the individual ships. If the page is going to be about the practise of giving ships badges, then that's fine, but a list or gallery of badges seems somewhat superfluous to me. Martocticvs 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it

Hi everyone. Here is some empirical proof of the phrase "ship's seal" as correct for referring to these emblems. You can see at this web page http://www.cvn70.navy.mil/facts/shipseal.htm, which is the website for USS Carl Vinson. I have included the link without a title, to point out that the name of the page itself uses the phrase ship's seal. Here's another occurrence, at the website for USS Ronald Reagan (scroll down, and look at the list of links). http://www.reagan.navy.mil/about_reagan/about_reagan.htm Actually perhaps some ships' emblems are "crests" and others are "seals"? Perhaps seals are circular graphics, whereas crests are more similar to regular coats of arms. Hope this is helpful. As usual, thanks very much to all for the robust and enjoyable discussion. See you. --Steve M, Sm8900 01:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion of these matters HERE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that link. I have registered at that site, and am trying to view the forum. I used the same username, sm8900. Appreciate any help you might be able to provide. thanks. --Sm8900 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the name, I've found numerous instances of it being called a "crest". here, here, here, here, here. On Google, "ship's crest" yields 851 results, and "ship's seal" yields 234. Not an overwhelming number in either direction. Recommend that we pick "Crest" and redirect from "Seal". Jinian 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of those instances where we have to consider the difference between US Navy and Royal Navy. The United States has a long tradition where all official bodies use a seal as an official emblem. From the president to the small towns. This is different from any other country I know of. I believe this practice is also the one used in the US Navy. So the article on US ship seals should use the term seal while any article on any other navy emblems should not. The Royal Navy does not have seals as official emblems, but I am not so sure if it is strictly correct to use crest either. The heraldry experts tell us that a crest is only a small part of the full Coat of arms, but is erroneously used (by those unfamiliar with heraldry I presume) as word for the entire coat of arms. Inge 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, except that every example of "Ship's Crest" that I linked to above was for the US Navy. Jinian 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look more closely at the examples you linked, many of them use crest in the correct heraldic sense for the bit on top of the shield (although the same pages often refer to the whole thing as crest). Just to be more confusing, the last example you linked, USS Chung-Hoon, has a crest on top of a shield, making up a coat of arms, which is surrounded by a blue border, and the whole thing is called a seal. I'm unsure what I would recommend for the US case, though from a heraldic perspective I'd be disinclined to use crest.

The situtation seems clearer (to me at least) for Commonwealth navies. From an heraldic point of view the emblems these use are more like heraldic badges, and indeed are referred to as such by the Royal Navy [2], Canadian Navy [3] and Australian Navy [4]. The New Zealand Navy [5] calls them crests, but they look similar to the other Commonwealth navies' badges, so this might be another case of the incorrect use of crest.

One possibility would be to have one article describing the use of seals/crests/badges/etc for all countries, call it Naval heraldry, and within the section on each country use the preferred or official terminology for that country. Dr pda 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Naval heraldry. Anyone else have strong feelings on this? I think we've reached consensus that a list of the seals/crests/badges/whatever is not something that we need, but that an article about such things (perhaps even discussing the naming issue) would be nice. Jinian 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. If we do change it to that, it seems to me it would still be worthwhile to have a separate article for US NAvy heraldry. This is basically in keeping with Wikipedia's implicit goal to be a comprehensive resource on many different subjects, some large, some small. And also in keeping with the idea to reflect some basic idea of many subjects, without necessarily trying to be the exhaustive resource on any particular one of them. --Sm8900 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping US Navy Ship Seals as an article on the US practice (with some examples) and creating a Naval heraldry article to cover the topic in general. I believe having separate articles will help both of them to grow, but I wouldn't object to merging the US article into the general article. Maybe we should rename the US article US naval heraldry or something similar and aim at having a small series of such articles?Inge 10:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(not indenting to improve readability) I don't mind having a section on US Navy Ship Seals in the Naval Heraldry article. Once the article gets too unwieldy, we can discuss breaking into various articles. I'd prefer one meaty, well-written article which covers the related subjects to many stubby articles.

But I don't feel strongly about this. Jinian 12:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm for an article about the general topic (if anybody can find source material for it), but NOT for including any more than a few examples in the article. The patches/crests/coats-of-arms/seals belong with the individual ships. The article as it stands now isn't much of an article, IMHO, though I haven't looked at it for a while. On the other hand, a properly-sourced general article would be a very nice thing to have. Lou Sander 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

new link

Hi . I found a page which sheds considerable light on the whole seal vs. crest issue. Here is the description for USS MAhan. This description makes clear distinctions between the shield, which is the actual shield shown in the coat of arms; the crest, which is the shield accompanied by devices above and below; and the seal, which the entire image, acompanied by a thick blue border with the ship's name and registry number included. hope this is helpful. thanks. --Sm8900 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk

Please would people keep an eye on this page. User:Mathieu121 keeps re-adding comments that portray the building of future Russian aircraft carriers as a virtual certainty, when it's actually quite unlikely. As the experts here will know, post Soviet military shipbuilding has been a slow, on and off, delayed process and completed ships have usually been corvettes, rather than aircraft carriers. Cheers Buckshot06 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Template Otherships

I find it a bad idea to include inline text at the end of ship articles. (Example:)

See [[HMS Pinafore|HMS ''Pinafore'']] for other ships of this name.

1. It is better to use templates to create a standard look.
2. I think the link to the disambiguation page should be at the top of the article.

I created a new disambiguation template {{Otherships}} to be placed at the top of articles. -- Petri Krohn 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that it makes more sense to have the disamb line at the top of the page, and have been doing that with the articles I've been writing/editing. But there's already a template for that, {{For|other ships with the same name|HMS Pinafore}}, which gives For other ships with the same name, see HMS Pinafore. Martocticvs 11:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Otherships}} produces the same output, (without typing errors). -- Petri Krohn 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake! That's great then, I'll start using that one in future articles. Martocticvs 21:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox warship template

Template:Infobox warship, which you can see in action at User:Rama/FS template and Le Fantasque (1935).

It could be possible to make it even more general, by adding cargo space or sailing surface.

Comments, praises, hits in the face welcome as usual. Rama 12:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need a replacement for Template:Infobox Ship. If there are things about it that are inadequate, we should edit it instead. TomTheHand 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there it was... >_< Rama 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, sorry :-) This page might be helpful for you. I'm certainly not opposed to making edits to Infobox Ship, as you seem to have some good ideas and a good handle on editing templates. TomTheHand 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD for Greek era categories

Could you guys weigh in on this? I'm generally opposed to deletion of categories that fit into our categorization structure, so I voted against, but even if you disagree with me I think the CFD would benefit from WP:SHIPS's input. TomTheHand 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Having edited articles on several of the 20th century Greek naval ships this week, I have to say that the Hellenic Navy is a complete mess. Some ships are in the non-standard Category:Hellenic Navy ships category while others are in the also non-standard Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy. While I could be mistaken, I think they should all be under the correct sub-category of Category:Naval ships of Greece. Once we get the categories fixed, we should also try to standardize the ship names. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't realize at all that there were two Hellenic Navy categories. That is a heck of a mess. TomTheHand 13:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I got this CFD (WWI cruisers) confused with the current CFD (see the Hellenic navy CFD below), so yeah, it is pretty confusing all the way around. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Article discussion page notice

Do we have a notice to place on article discussion pages to indicate that the article in question is supported by WP:SHIPS? If not, it might be worthwile creating one... Martocticvs 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at one {{WikiProject Ships}}. It's very basic, no bells and whistles at the moment, but we can start including it right away. I did go beyond the traditional one image to show we're not just about warships. I've got USS Constitution and RMS Queen Mary 2. I intentionally didn't include a modern warship. I must admit there might be a slight personal bias in choosing one of the images. :) Actually I'd consider simple line drawings of similar ships as a better choice, but don't have any handy. Comment away, but please start using it.--J Clear 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I'll start using it on all new article edits. Martocticvs 16:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD on Hellenic Navy ships/Ships of the Hellenic Navy

A CFD has been proposed for the merging of Category:Hellenic Navy ships and Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy. While we have had issues trying to achieve consensus on how to standardize country/naval category names, it seams to me that the de facto standard is to use the Cathead naval ships of template (used in over 30 "Naval ships of country-x" categories), which would be Category:Naval ships of Greece. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Shipbuilders revisited

A while back we had a discussion about drawing up a sort of useful list of shipbuilders for the project page so that we were all singing from the same hymnsheet, that discussion was here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive04#Shipbuilders (now archived).

User:Harlsbottom produced this useful start point, here. Further to this, for my own use, I have compiled a list of British shipbuilders - User:Emoscopes/shipyards. At the moment this is just a reference for myself, so it isn't formatted. It is arranged alphabetically for the main, but look out, some are named out-of-order as they are chronological after the original name of the yard! Yes, this may seem silly, but it makes sense to me for what I am using it for at the moment. Regardless, please do feel free to make use of it.

I think we were pretty much agreed on that general format for inclusion in articles, that is;

first instance in article; [[full company name]], [[location]] e.g. [[John I. Thornycroft & Company]], [[Woolston, Southampton|Woolston]]

subsequent instances; truncated name e.g just Thornycroft

It would be a useful addition to this project if we could start an official project list of yards, in an agreed format, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling again on this one. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Has the GlobalSecurity.org Shipyard facilities page been pointed out here? US shipyards only, but it might be useful. --Dual Freq 13:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a main space List in the making. Hey, it's no worse a topic than some of the Lists out there. --J Clear 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another good source:U.S. Shipbuilding History. --Dual Freq 22:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this topic came up again. I was looking for it, but couldn't find it. I recently got a map of the U.S. with the names and locations of every U.S. shipyard that was active during WWII. I scanned it in from a WWII-era government report. If anybody would like to take on the task of documenting this information, I'll be happy to send them an electronic copy of the map. (Anybody else can have one, too.) Let me know if you're interested. Lou Sander 01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The list I drew up above is purely a blue-link one, i.e what is available on WP (i've tried to ensure all the major builders are). If other contributors are happy to go for a complete list of yards in their area of interest i'd be more than happy to draw it up from Lenton and Janes and various other sources for a more complete representation of shipbuilders. Emoscopes ^Talk 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made an abortive attempt at a shipyard list at User:Dual Freq/Shipyards. It's more of a Navel Vessel Register cross reference, but it might be useful. Feel free to copy from it to your own userspace or use it to start a list article. I'm not sure where I'll go with it because after after researching for a Todd Shipyards article, I found out that one of their shipyards (Brooklyn, NY, closed in the mid-80s) was leveled to make room for an Ikea store. The whole thing made me rather depressed, so I'm not sure my list will go much further. --Dual Freq 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Emoscopes and Dual Freq, very nice work. I apologise for only starting the list, but University and a general dissatisfaction with Wikipedia imposed. I'm still very interested in seeing a proper list constructed someday. We really need to start a specific taskforce for something like this, or at least a proper committment. As to the depressing nature of de-industrialisation, see the old Vickers Armstrong Works in Barrow-in-Furness. Truly depressing, and most of it's still there! --Harlsbottom 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Londonderry/Derry

Initially I thought this was going to be an isolated incident at USS Charles F. Hughes (DD-428), but Derry Boi has moved on to USS Greene (DD-266) replacing Londonderry with Derry as both the visible text and link.

Copied from Talk:USS Charles F. Hughes (DD-428)

1) DANFS uses Londonderry, which means that it was probably that way in the official ships log or report, the usual source for DANFS. The relevant text of this article is a direct quote from DANFS, changes should have citations. 2) The ship left from the port, not the city, and even the Derry City Council refers to the port as Londonderry Port. --J Clear 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sympathy to all who are mired in the Derry argument. Derryboy quotes WP:IMOS as a support for his view (which I would usually accept). However, this explicitly says it applies to article names and makes no recommendation on content. For me the issue is: was there a naval base and what was it called at the time - it's not uncommon for the military (US & UK) to allocate base names irrespective of local usage. Also, "Londonderry Port" is at Lisahally - was this where the wartime base would have been? Folks at 137 11:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to render my opinion if I could. I don't think we should look at DANFS as anything more than a starting point. It often has an unencylopedic tone and it's not very NPOV. Since it's public domain text, we can change it in any ways we want in order to improve it. We should feel no pressure to quote it exactly.

However, as you said, the port (which was a major base for antisubmarine operations in WWII) appears to be almost universally called "Londonderry Port", so it seems to me that the text should read "Londonderry Port" (instead of just Londonderry) with a link to Derry. TomTheHand 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any other suggestions? --J Clear 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the city is called Derry (see WP:IMOS)`. Therfore if you're linking to the city itself, "Londonderry" shouldn't be used. Derry Boi 12:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a separate article on Londonderry Port. We just have information about the port on the Derry page. TomTheHand 13:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This spreads further than the Derry/ Londonderry debate. When I've edited articles relating to WWII, I've usually used names current at the time, linking correctly and with an explanation in parentheses, eg, "Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)" or "Stalingrad (now Volgograd)". This applies to loads of places, including St Petersburg/ Leningrad, Burma/ Myanmar, Malaya/ Malay peninsular, etc. It seems right, to me, to use names used at the time and that might also apply to Kingstown/ Dun Laoghaire for WWI or earlier articles. I think there's a general issue of consistency. Also, if we're to use only official names, this might need explanation to less aware readers, eg Dublin/ Baile Atha Cliath. Folks at 137 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You can now use Londonderry Port if you need to. --Henrygb 13:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we need a few new ship articles written: HMS Hinchinbroke (1779), HMS Albemarle (1779) and HMS Foudroyant (1798), any RN fans interested?--J Clear 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the Foudroyant some time this week if possible. The other two ships I think I have a fair bit of info on as well so I'll look into those also. Martocticvs 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It turns out I have loads of info on all 3 so I'm quite happy to tackle those. Foudroyant's article will be completed by the end of the week most likely, with the others to follow soon after. Martocticvs 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jon-Eastham.co.uk (Shipping Photos from Portsmouth, UK)

Hi, I am the owner and maintainer of this non-profit website and own the rights to all intellectual property within it and would like to offer any of the shipping photos from my site to help illustrate any of the pages on which they would be relevant. I'd like to do this on the pretense that any articles in which my intellectual property is used is notified to me (maybe by a new page i can create in my userpages on which people can add what theyve done.) and also a link to the site or acknowledgement is also made. If someone would care to contact me about making this official I'd be happy to have a talk with them. Prior to such time please only look.

For reference the site contains:

• The majority of the Current Royal Navy (including most of the recent decommissionings),
• The majority of the ships attending the Trafalgar 200 fleet review.
• Various other foreign vessels representing 30 nations.
• Currently numbers over 200 military plus 30-40 commercial as well.

JonEastham 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice site! Regarding contributing such photos to Wikipedia, WP no longer accepts work under a "non-free" licence, i.e. one restricting use to Wikimedia only. However, you can still submit your own work, you would just have to choose a licence to issue it under that is acceptable to yourself. A list of such licences can be found here Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators. I hope you find something there to allow you to share your excellent images. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From that page, it would appear that the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license might be closest to what you're looking for, Jon. You can put, in the Attribution Details, any acknowledgements you would require users of the images to make. However, the license allows anyone to use the images for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as they attribute you as the creator, and the license can't be revoked if you change your mind.

If you're unwilling to license your work under a free license, perhaps we could add links from Wikipedia to your pages where appropriate. TomTheHand 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that even if someone uses your picture for commercial use, it must still be published under the terms of the original CC license. Noone can change that, and if you are happy submitting smaller and lower quality versions of your original images under that license I would heartily encourage it, as you have a great selection. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike seems to be the closest one to what I'd like, only smaller, lower quality version would be acceptable. So if there's any articles you think would be needed. I'd be happy to reproduce the images at a size of about 307 x 205 pixels for them to be used on Wikipedia (and anywhere else under the Template:cc-by-sa-2.5 license) If theres any you'd specifically like, just let me know. JonEastham 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I stuck a link to the web site and your offer in the sources section of the project page. Please review it and change as necessary.--J Clear 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, have edited to make it a little more specific to what the site contains and altered resolution to 300px width with a differing height depending on the image its coming from. JonEastham 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pre-revolution Russian ships

Dmitri Donskoi, a circa 1904 Russian cruiser mentioned in Japanese cruiser Akashi currently redirects to the ship's 14th century namesake. I couldn't find a rule for what the ship should be named. Note that there is also a modern submarine with this name, currently only described in the Typhoon class article. Rmhermen 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be Russian cruiser Dmitri Donskoi as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Emoscopes ^Talk 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspected that but didn't know if that would apply to Imperial Russian ships. Rmhermen 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Royal Navy ships

While this is a useful template, in my opinion it's just too big. Therefore, I've taken a lead from some guys over on the AFV wikiproject and made a collapsing template;

Commissioned Royal Navy Ships

Aircraft carriers Invincible-class HMS Illustrious | HMS Ark Royal Submarines Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine HMS Vanguard | HMS Victorious | HMS Vigilant | HMS Vengeance Swiftsure-class fleet submarine HMS Superb | HMS Sceptre Trafalgar-class fleet submarine HMS Trafalgar | HMS Turbulent | HMS Tireless | HMS Torbay | HMS Trenchant | HMS Talent HMS Triumph Destroyers Type 42 (Sheffield/Manchester-class) HMS Exeter | HMS Southampton | HMS Nottingham | HMS Liverpool | HMS Manchester | HMS Gloucester | HMS Edinburgh | HMS York Frigates Type 22 (Broadsword-class) HMS Cornwall | HMS Cumberland | HMS Campbeltown | HMS Chatham Type 23 (Duke-class) HMS Argyll | HMS Lancaster | HMS Iron Duke | HMS Monmouth | HMS Montrose | HMS Westminster | HMS Northumberland | HMS Richmond | HMS Somerset | HMS Sutherland | HMS Kent | HMS Portland | HMS St Albans Landing vessels Albion-class Landing Platform, Docks HMS Albion | HMS Bulwark Landing Platform, Helicopter HMS Ocean Mine countermeasures vessels Sandown-class HMS Walney | HMS Penzance | HMS Pembroke | HMS Grimsby | HMS Bangor | HMS Ramsey | HMS Blyth | HMS Shoreham Hunt-class HMS Ledbury | HMS Cattistock | HMS Brocklesby | HMS Middleton | HMS Chiddingfold | HMS Atherstone | HMS Hurworth | HMS Quorn Patrol vessels Antarctic ice-patrol ship HMS Endurance River-class HMS Mersey | HMS Severn | HMS Tyne Castle- class HMS Dumbarton Castle Archer-class HMS Archer | HMS Biter | HMS Smiter | HMS Blazer | HMS Puncher | HMS Charger | HMS Ranger | HMS Trumpeter | HMS Express | HMS Example | HMS Explorer | HMS Exploit | HMS Tracker | HMS Raider | HMS Pursuer | HMS Dasher Scimitar-class HMS Scimitar | HMS Sabre Survey vessels Ocean-going survey vessel HMS Scott Coastal survey vessel HMS Roebuck Echo-class multi-role survey vessel HMS Echo | HMS Enterprise Survey launch HMS Gleaner Miscellaneous vessels Type 82 destroyer HMS Bristol (Static training vessel) C class cruiser HMS Caroline (Shore establishment) First-rate Ship of the line HMS Victory (Flagship of the Second Sea Lord)

List of Royal Navy ships

Comments? Emoscopes ^Talk 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's much better like that for sure - though it is still pretty huge... would it be worth making the whole thing collapsable as well maybe? Have the default appearance be the header row and the List of Royal Navy ships row, the stuff in between hidden away... of course that could take away a lot of its usefulness... Martocticvs 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself, I amn't too hot with the code for this, but I'll give it a bash and see what comes out. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

how about now? I can't seem to get the alignment right, ideally it should be central both vertically and horizontally. If anyone wants to play, please feel free to (I can always revert back to a lastgood) Emoscopes ^Talk 17:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

well it's all centred up and pretty, and a big improvement on what was there before so I took the liberty of replacing it, and adding it to the pages of active ships as I feel it is now small enough to go there without causing too much ugliness. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks about right to me I think. I saw the ultra-collapsed version (forgot to post a comment, sorry), and I thought that overall it probably would have been a bit lost on the page like that, so going back to this form I think was the right way to go. All centred up it looks great. Martocticvs 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure it could be improved, but I'm also sure that it's a lot better than what preceded it! It is a lot more pertinent now I've put it on all the pages of commissioned ships, one can now navigate quite easily around the entire RN fleet :) Emoscopes ^Talk 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Oak Victory

Should SS Red Oak Victory (AK-235) be renamed to USS Red Oak Victory (AK-235)? Doesn't seem right to have an SS with a hull designator.--J Clear 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends, (and the article doesn't say) was she commissioned into the US Navy? In my understanding of the application of the term, if she was, then she is USS and if not and she was a merchantman, then she is SS. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

DANFS doesn't have an article, but Navsource.org says

• Launched (date unknown)
• Acquired by the US Navy, 3 November 1944 and commissioned USS Red Oak Victory (AK-235), the same day, LCDR. John Sayers, USNR, in command
• Decommissioned, 21 May 1946
• Transferred to the Maritime Commission, 12 June 1946, for lay up in the National Defense Reserve Fleet, Suisun Bay, Benecia, CA.
• Struck from the Naval Register, 19 July 1946

—wwoods 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What DANFS are you using? http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/r3/red_oak_victory.htm --J Clear 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. How did I miss it? Anyway, that answers your original question. —wwoods 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the move. --J Clear 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk

Please would people keep an eye on this page. User:Mathieu121 keeps re-adding comments that portray the building of future Russian aircraft carriers as a virtual certainty, when it's actually quite unlikely. As the experts here will know, post Soviet military shipbuilding has been a slow, on and off, delayed process and completed ships have usually been corvettes, rather than aircraft carriers. Cheers Buckshot06 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just copied this one out from the archive. I noticed that this Mathieu121 chap has just made another edit, removing any suggestion that the construction of this ship is not going to happen. I reverted it to your last version and left a request for him to post on the discussion page the reasoning behind his edits in the edit summary. Martocticvs 23:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Recommissionings in infobox

I recently adding a "Recommissioned" box and a second "Decommissioned" box to Template:Infobox Ship because recommissioning happens to so many ships. However, in the article which inspired me to do it, the ship recommissioned and decommissioned a THIRD time as well, and I didn't want to add another box without asking. I'm writing to see if people have opinions on this issue.

Should we support several periods of commission in the infobox? If so, how many? USS New Jersey (BB-62) commissioned during WWII, decommissioned shortly after, recommissioned for Korea, decommissioned, recommissioned for Vietnam, decommissioned, recommissioned in the early 1980s, and decommissioned for the final time in 1991. I don't really like the solution of substing the infobox and then making modifications to it once it's on the page. It leaves the page's code very ugly.

So I guess there are three possibilities:

1. The infobox should only contain the initial commission date and the final decommission date.
2. The infobox should contain each commissioning and decommissioning, and they should be put in by substing the template and adding them manually, because supporting tons of commissionings in the template would make it unwieldy.
3. The infobox should contain each commissioning and decommissioning, and the template should support as many commissionings as we could possibly need. We could have the template itself be quite complicated, but only provide general instruction on how to use it, so that the code you copy and paste into the page doesn't get too complicated. For example, the copy-and-paste code could only list one commissioning and decommissioning, but we'd provide directions that "If the ship recommissioned and then decommissioned again, add additional numbered lines, like "Ship commissioned 2=" "Ship decommissioned 2=" as necessary.

I like the third possibilty personally but I don't want to complicate the hell out of the template without soliciting opinions first. TomTheHand 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just put first and last dates in the infobox. Well, first and last for each career of a ship. How would you suggest handling USS Herndon (DD-198)?

—wwoods 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to handle ships that have changed hands. The template simply doesn't support it and I don't know how to provide support without making it ridiculously complicated. TomTheHand 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Complicated table

Hey! I hadn't thought about the problem for a while, but there is a ((fairly) simple) solution. The idea behind the set of old mtnbox templates, {{mtnbox start}} etc., which were recently replaced by an all-in-one {{Infobox Mountain}}, would do. You need to split the infobox into sections:

1. Infobox Ship start has the table formatting and the image.
2. Infobox Ship career has all the details of a ship's career in one service, from the flag to the fate.
3. Infobox Ship characteristics has all those details about the ship.
4. Infobox Ship finish just has to close the table formatting: "|}". But currently some boxes have a second image, e.g. of a patch, so throw in a line for that too.

All the parameters are optional, so you can stack multiple careers and they combine seamlessly. Heck, you could even use a career pared down to

 {{Infobox Ship career
  | recommissioned = [DATE1] 
  | decommissioned = [DATE2]
 }}

which produces

  | Recommissioned
  | [DATE1]
  |-
  | Decommmissioned
  | [DATE2]
  |- 

if you want to list multiple commissionings within one service. That requires that the blue-backed "Career" line also not show up then; make it dependent on the flag parameter having a value, I guess. And I've seen some ships with multiple armament lines, to show the ships' evolution. Mmm, for that, characteristics needs a flag to suppress the blue-backed "General Characteristics" line, so you can have

    :
  | crew = [CREW]
  | armament = [ARMAMENT1]
 }}
 {{Infobox Ship characteristics
  | header = no
  | armament = [ARMAMENT2]
  | aircraft = [AIRCRAFT]
    : 

to produce

    :
  | Crew
  | [CREW]
  |-
  | Armament
  | [ARMAMENT1]
  |-
  | Armament
  | [ARMAMENT2]
  |-
  | Aircraft
  | [AIRCRAFT]
  |-
    :

How's that sound? The implementation is a simple matter of programming. ;-)
—wwoods 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I had fooled around with making {{Infobox Ship}} stackable, without having separate start, middle, finish templates. This is more flexible, because in each usage, you can fill in what is different from the previous comissioning, (e.g. different armament for Iowa class, different country for second owners, etc.). I had not gotten around to the necessary making every parameter self hiding if not respecified, which would have a side effect of hiding missing "required" parameters in present usage. The best positive feature was that all present usage of the template, which would by default omit the new "stacking" parameter, would behave as they do now. The code wasn't that complicated, neither is usage. This was outlined at Template talk:Infobox Ship#Stackable, which has a link to my experiment.

If there is any interest in this, I can finish it up fairly quickly. --J Clear 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

J Clear, it would be awesome if you'd be able to finish that up. One thing: how does your solution handle multiple commission and decommission dates in the same navy? It'd be best to be able to handle that in a single "career" section instead of having a separate one for each commission period. Perhaps the "career" and "general characteristics" section headers could be hideable with a flag as wwoods suggests. TomTheHand 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid using copy and paste or subst solutions, because that negates a major value of using a template. --J Clear 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)