Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope 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.
Template rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale
NA rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale
Protected The templates Infobox Ship Begin, Infobox Ship Career, Infobox Ship Characteristics and Infobox Ship Image have been indefinitely protected from editing.
To edit the template documentation, categorize the template, or add interwiki links, edit the specific documentation page. (Found by typing /doc after the template name e.g. Template:Infobox Ship Begin/doc. To request a change to any of the templates add {{editprotected}} to this page stating clearly the specific template, followed by a description of your request.

Contents

[edit] Usage

This is a documentation subpage for Template:Infobox Ship Begin (see that page for the template itself).
It contains usage information, categories and other content that is not part of the original template page.

This ship infobox supports a very large number of fields, including some specialty fields that will rarely be used. Some fields simply don't make sense in some cases. Some different sets of code have been prepared using only the most common fields. Select the most appropriate set below and copy and paste the entire code to the top of a ship article, then fill in as many fields as possible. Empty fields should generally be kept so that a future editor can fill them in unless they make no sense for the ship in question.

The "Full" code contains every field the template supports. If you want, you can copy one of the the simplified sets of code and add a few fields from the "Full" code.

If you have ideas for improvements or would like to add brand new fields to these templates, please post on Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc to discuss the changes and how they should be implemented.

[edit] Code for individual ships

Full code for individual ships. Select show to expand.
Code for most warships. Select show to expand.
Code for Age of Sail. Select show to expand.
Code for submarines. Select show to expand.
Code for commercial vessels. Select show to expand.

[edit] Code for ship classes

Full code for ship classes. Select show to expand.
Code for most warship classes. Select show to expand.
Code for Age of Sail classes. Select show to expand.
Code for submarine classes. Select show to expand.
Code for commercial vessel classes. Select show to expand.


[edit] See also

[edit] Usage of fields

Most fields are self-explanatory, but here are some tips:

  1. Ship image has Image:No Photo Available.svg in the copy-and-paste code. If your article does not have an image, please consider leaving the "No Photo Available" image there. Editors can easily see a list of pages which use the "No Photo Available" image and work to find pictures.
  2. Ship caption, the caption for the ship's picture, should be left blank if no extra information about the picture is available; don't just fill in the ship's name.
  3. Ship country is necessary when a ship served under multiple countries, but not really necessary otherwise.
  4. Ship class should include both the class and the type of ship. For example, Balao-class diesel-electric submarine provides complete information. It can be replaced with Ship type, which displays as "Type:", for ships that aren't members of a class.
  5. Ship name is necessary when a ship served under multiple names, but not really necessary otherwise.
  6. Ship fate and Ship status generally shouldn't both be filled in. Whichever one sounds most appropriate for the situation should be filled in. Use Ship fate when the ship sank or was scrapped, and use Ship status when the ship is active, kept in reserve, or currently a museum.
  7. Ship displacement and Ship tonnage are not the same thing. displacement is the mass of a ship in a particular condition, like when it's fully loaded for battle. It is generally used for military vessels. Tonnage is a measurement of the cargo capacity of a vessel and isn't exactly correlated with weight: a ship of a particular tonnage will have a different mass depending on whether it's full of grain or iron.

[edit] Alternate spellings

Some fields provide alternate spellings and should never both be filled in:

  1. "Ship honors" and "Ship honours"
  2. "Ship draft" and "Ship draught"
  3. "Ship armor" and "Ship armour"

[edit] Removing extra fields

It's generally a good idea not to remove fields, because another editor might be able to provide the information later. However, in the case of mutually exclusive fields, like "Ship armor" and "Ship armour", the unused field can be removed if desired. Also, if a section is repeated (to show multiple periods in commission, for example), fields that are inappropriate to duplicate can be removed if desired.

[edit] Special capabilities

[edit] Repeating sections

This infobox allows you to repeat sections. To repeat, just make a copy of the section to be repeated. You can repeat the Image, Career, or Characteristics sections. Here is an example, with extra fields removed for clarity:

USS Bang
Career (US) United States Navy ensign
Name: USS Bang (SS-385)
Laid down: 30 April 1943
Launched: 30 August 1943
Commissioned: 4 December 1943
Decommissioned: 1 October 1972
Struck: 18 November 1974
Career (Spain)
Name: SPS Cosme Garcia (S34)
Fate: scrapped 1983
General characteristics
Displacement: 1,526 tons surfaced
2,391 tons
Length: 311 ft 8 in (95 m)
Beam: 27 ft 3 in (8.3 m)
Complement: 66 
{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{Infobox Ship Image
|Ship image=[[Image:Uss bang.jpg|center|300px|USS Bang]]
|Ship caption=
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=
|Ship country=US
|Ship flag={{USN flag|1972}}
|Ship name=USS ''Bang'' (SS-385)
|Ship laid down=[[30 April]] [[1943]]
|Ship launched=[[30 August]] [[1943]]
|Ship commissioned=[[4 December]] [[1943]]
|Ship decommissioned=[[1 October]] [[1972]]
|Ship struck=[[18 November]] [[1974]]
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=
|Ship country=Spain
|Ship flag=[[Image:Flag of Spain.svg|60px]]
|Ship name=SPS ''Cosme Garcia'' (S34)
|Ship fate=scrapped 1983
}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics
|Hide header=
|Header caption=
|Ship displacement=1,526 tons surfaced<br>2,391 tons
|Ship length=311 ft 8 in (95 m)
|Ship beam=27 ft 3 in (8.3 m)
|Ship complement=66
}}
|}


[edit] Hiding section headers

It is possible to hide the headers for the Career and General Characteristics sections, in order to repeat fields. For example, a ship might have been commissioned, decommissioned, recommissioned, and decommissioned again. To have the second commission and decommission dates, use additional a second Infobox Ship Career template with its header hidden, like this:

User:TomTheHand/Infobox Ship Image

Career (US) United States Navy ensign
Laid down: 25 January 1941
Launched: 7 December 1943
Commissioned: 16 April 1944
Decommissioned: July 1, 1948
Recommissioned: March 3, 1951
Decommissioned: March 8, 1958
Recommissioned: August 1, 1986
Decommissioned: 30 September 1991
Struck: 17 March 2006
Fate: Museum ship
General characteristics (1943)
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 887.2 ft (270 m)
Beam: 108.2 ft (33 m)
Draft: 28.9 ft (8.8 m)
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h)
Complement: 1,921 officers and men
Armament: big guns 
{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{Infobox Ship Image
|Ship image=
|Ship caption=USS ''Wisconsin'' at sea, circa 1990
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=
|Ship country=(US)
|Ship flag={{USN flag|1992}}
|Ship laid down=[[25 January]] [[1941]]
|Ship launched=[[7 December]] [[1943]]
|Ship commissioned=[[16 April]] [[1944]]
|Ship decommissioned=[[July 1]], [[1948]]
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=yes
|Ship recommissioned=[[March 3]], [[1951]]
|Ship decommissioned=[[March 8]], [[1958]]
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=yes
|Ship recommissioned=[[August 1]], [[1986]]
|Ship decommissioned=[[30 September]] [[1991]]
|Ship struck=[[17 March]] [[2006]]
|Ship fate=[[Museum ship]]
}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics
|Hide header=
|Header caption=(1943)
|Ship displacement=45,000 tons
|Ship length=887.2 ft (270 m)
|Ship beam=108.2 ft (33 m)
|Ship draft=28.9 ft (8.8 m)
|Ship speed=33 knots (61 km/h)
|Ship complement=1,921 officers and men
|Ship armament=big guns
}}
|}

[edit] Header captions

The General Characteristics section can be given a caption using the Header caption field. See the USS Wisconsin example above, which has a header caption of (1943) to indicate that the characteristics provided are as of 1943.


[edit] Custom fields

USS West Virginia (BB-48) in San Francisco Bay, circa 1934.
USS West Virginia (BB-48) in San Francisco Bay, circa 1934.
Career (US) United States Navy ensign
Ordered: 5 December 1916
Laid down: 12 April 1920
Launched: 17 November 1921
Commissioned: 1 December 1923
Sunk: 7 December 1941
Raised: 17 May 1942
Decommissioned: 9 January 1947
Struck: 1 March 1959
Nickname: "Wee Vee"
Fate: sold for scrap
General characteristics
Displacement: 33,590 tons
Length: 624 ft (190 m)
Beam: 97.3 ft (29.6 m)
Draft: 30.5 ft (9.3 m)
Speed: 21.0 knots (39 km/h)
Complement: 1,407 officers and men
Armament: big guns

It is possible to add custom fields to the infobox using standard Wiki table syntax. This is not encouraged, because infoboxes are intended to standardize the appearance of ship articles, but it can be done if needed. See the below example, where "Sunk:" and "Raised:" fields are added to the ship's career:

{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{Infobox Ship Image
|Ship image=
|Ship caption=USS West Virginia (BB-48) in San Francisco Bay, circa 1934.
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=
|Ship country=US
|Ship flag={{USN flag|1947}}
|Ship ordered=[[5 December]] [[1916]]
|Ship laid down=[[12 April]] [[1920]]
|Ship launched=[[17 November]] [[1921]]
|Ship commissioned=[[1 December]] [[1923]]
}}
|-
|Sunk:
|[[7 December]] [[1941]]
|-
|Raised:
|[[17 May]] [[1942]]
{{Infobox Ship Career
|Hide header=yes
|Ship decommissioned=[[9 January]] [[1947]]
|Ship fate=sold for scrap
|Ship struck=[[1 March]] [[1959]]
|Ship nickname="Wee Vee"
}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics
|Hide header=
|Ship displacement=33,590 tons
|Ship length=624 ft (190 m)
|Ship beam=97.3 ft (29.6 m)
|Ship draft=30.5 ft (9.3 m)
|Ship speed=21.0 knots (39 km/h)
|Ship complement=1,407 officers and men
|Ship armament=big guns
}}
|}


That's very clever. I like it. Demonstrates the value of the "Hide header" field, too. Additional fields can also be added after {{Infobox Ship Characteristics ...}} and before the "|}".
One little thing, "Ship nickname" is no longer documented in "Characteristics" though it's still in the template.
Where does one find out about things like {{-}}? Cheesh! Talk about esoteric. I know it's documented, but where did you find it? I need to run a cable drop to the bedroom so I can read myself to sleep scoping out templates. --Saintrain 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing the "Ship nickname" thing. As far as {{-}} goes, when I was developing this infobox, I came up with some examples and put them at User:TomTheHand/test. Everything sort of ran together instead of getting divided how I expected by the section headers, and Dual Freq (talk · contribs) came by and inserted some {{-}}'s to clean it up. That's how I learned about it. TomTheHand 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I LIKE WP! --Saintrain 01:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Duplicated fields

I'm interpreting "Characteristics" as generic to the class of ship and "Career" as specific to a ship. I've copied "motto, nickname, honours, honors, notes and badge" from {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}} to {{Infobox Ship Career}}, and added "sponsor".

I've copied "class" from {{Infobox_Ship_Career}} to {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}}. I haven't removed or reordered anything. To my way of thinking, "class" is a characteristic and "honors" belong to a career.

In addition, where appropriate, a "class" page, e.g. Gilliam class attack transport can include an already-filled-in {{Infobox Ship Characteristics Gilliam ...}} and the articles on individual ships of this class can include the same template in place of the a blank {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}}.

I hope this is acceptable,

--Saintrain 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately you can't do it that way. This page is just a way of putting all documentation for the templates into a centralized location; you've changed the instructions for the templates without changing the templates themselves.
Now, I see what you're saying, but the changes you've suggested will not be simple. Let's discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, because more people will see the discussion and so it'll be easier to get input. TomTheHand 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom. I changed the templates AND this page all at once so that they would be in agreement. Now they aren't.
Did you mean I "can't do it that way" = "I didn't ask?" or that you didn't notice the changes to the templates?
--Saintrain 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I managed to miss the changes to the template, and thought you had only changed this page. Sorry about that! However, it would be preferable to discuss this kind of change before making it, because these templates are used in many different articles so it affects a lot of people at once. TomTheHand 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
(We're gonna run out of colons pretty soon!) Re: your edit "if we're going to move these things, we should only document the way we want them to be used, not the backwards-compatibility-only way"; Speaking as a WP user not just a Ship user, I have no problem leaving those attributes in both templates, it's like way more inclusive and stuff. Somebody might want them and now this page doesn't agree with tha current templates. Howsabout leaving everything in "Full" and simplifying "Simplified"? Maybe put Simplified first? --Saintrain 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, if someone wants to do it the old way, I say "tough" ;-) Part of the reason for using a template is so that every ship's infobox looks the same, so I really don't think we should document the old way. I don't think people should be able to choose different ways to order fields. I'm still tempted to edit all uses of the infobox to conform to the new arrangement of fields, and then remove the backwards compatibility. TomTheHand 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian Ship fields

Hello, the template works quite well; I think it's a very noble effort to try to build a robust and diverse enough template for all ships, naval and civilian. Whoever is very good at the code, I was wondering if my inclusion shown on the template page could be added to the actual template. I'm not quite sure how to make the changes without making big problems. You can see what I'm trying to do on my Sandbox. Thanks. -- Pesco 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add them. I do have a few suggestions, though. First, the horsepower of the ship's engines is usually put into the "Propulsion" field. For example, USS Essex (CV-9) has the following in its propulsion field:

As designed:
8 × boilers (565 psi., 850ºF)
4 × Westinghouse geared steam turbines
4 × shafts
150,000 shp

Please put horsepower there right after noting what kind of engine the ship has. Second, what do you plan to put into "cargo capacity". If it's the ship's capacity in gross or net tonnage, it should go in the tonnage field, but if you're running into situations where you need other kinds of capacity, I'll be happy to add the field. TomTheHand 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll use the propulsion field as you suggest and use gross and net tonnage. I do think cargo capacity would be of use to describe capacity in a way other than in tons. For example, container ships measure ship capacity by TEU. Some ro-ro ships measure capacity by square feet or square meters of useful cargo deck space, or in approximate number of vehicles they can carry. For passenger ships, number of passengers should go under "compliment" "complement", correct? Thanks again. -- Pesco 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Argh, I'm sorry. Somehow I managed to just lose track of this conversation until it got bumped back up today. Technically "complement" refers only to crew, not passengers, so putting passengers there probably wouldn't be appropriate. If a single field called "capacity" were added, would that suffice for both cargo capacity on cargo ships and passenger capacity on passenger ships, or would you strongly prefer separate fields? TomTheHand 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait, there is already a "capacity" field. Could that be used? Add fields is easy to do, but I prefer to keep the template as simple as possible and have as many multi-use fields as possible. TomTheHand 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, because "compliment" with an "i" and "complement" with an "e" are two different words. Michael Hardy 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you knew what I meant, though. *sigh* --Pesco 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ensign vs. jack

I noticed that in most instances for military ships, the infobox_ship has the ensign of the country (UK, Poland, Australia, Italy) while for others (USA, Greece, the defunct CSA) the naval jack is used. I am curious if there are historical reasons for this and if we should settle on a standard way to display infoboxes or not. Argos'Dad 15:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should generally use the Ensign of the nation because it is much more recognizable than the sea jack to most people. --MarVelo 11:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging functionality from {{Infobox Commercial Ship}}

Ok, let's discuss how to bring the functionality from Infobox Commercial Ship over to this set of ship templates. Here's a listing of what Infobox Commercial Ship contains, along with my notes:

  1. Ship name - currently supported by Infobox Ship Career as a row, but not as a header for the infobox. There are a few reasons for this. First, I think it's considered unnecessary because you can already read the title of the article for the ship name. Second, the name can change, especially for commercial ships, so you can put the different names in different career boxes - see USS Entemedor (SS-340), which served with the US and then with Turkey and has two different career boxes as a result.
  2. Ship image - currently supported
  3. Ship caption - currently supported
  4. Ship country - currently supported
  5. Ship flag - currently supported
  6. Ship class - currently supported
  7. Ship ordered - currently supported
  8. Ship awarded - currently supported
  9. Ship builder - currently supported
  10. Ship laid down - currently supported
  11. Ship completed - not currently supported - we can add this added!
  12. Ship status - currently supported
  13. Ship homeport - currently supported
  14. Ship tonnage - currently supported
  15. Ship height - not currently supported - we can add this added!
  16. Ship length - currently supported
  17. Ship beam - currently supported
  18. Ship draft - currently supported
  19. Ship draught - currently supported
  20. Ship propulsion - currently supported
  21. Ship speed - currently supported
  22. Ship operator - not currently supported - we can add this, but I would feel more comfortable including it up in the Career box, as it's not a physical characteristic added (but to Career, not Characteristics)
  23. Ship crew - not currently supported - we can add this added!
  24. Ship capacity - currently supported
  25. Ship motto - currently supported in the Career box. I would feel most comfortable keeping it up there.
  26. Ship nickname - currently supported in the Career box. I would feel most comfortable keeping it up there.
  27. Ship honours - currently supported in the Career box. I would feel most comfortable keeping it up there.
  28. Ship honors - currently supported in the Career box. I would feel most comfortable keeping it up there.

In addition, there was discussion on WP:SHIPS talk about adding some additional fields: sail plan and number of funnels. I'd like to have further discussion about these. I'll add them if there's consensus but to me they seem to fit fine under the currently existing "propulsion" row, especially number of funnels. Even if some funnels are decorative, one could certainly explain that in the row. Again, I'm not going to stonewall here. I will add them if there's consensus; let's just all chime in! Also, if I've forgotten some fields that someone wanted to add, please remind me. TomTheHand 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Capacity" is really a rather too general term here I think. Capacity of what? And what about ships that carry more than one type of gargo? For instance a car/passenger ferry needs separate fields for [i]passenger[/i] capacity and [i]car[/i] capacity, often also for gargo capacity (in other words lanematers). Fields that I would have need for that don't currently exist would be:
  • Passenger capacity
  • Car-carrying capacity - often listed separately from gargo capacity
  • Gargo capacity
  • Number of passenger beds - can be a different number from passenger capacity
  • Number of cabins
  • Ice class
  • Sister ships - very often there is no officially named class, the ship just has one or two similar sister ships, and no class page exists
Also, like I said in the project discussion page, I would rather prefer to have the company name and flag replace the country name and flag for civilian ships as the nationality of a civilian ship - especially during modern times - is of neglible importance, and a ship's nationality can be changed during it's service for one company. However, if others feel this is needlessly complex, I'm willing to (grudgingly) go with the majority.
And personally I'd really like to have the ship's (current) name as the infobox header - it would make the infobox much clearer and more informative. -- Kjet 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:No Photo Available.svg
Career (TomCo)
Name: SS TomTheHand
Motto: "Hurray Wikipedia!"
Career (Anti-TomCo)
Name: SS TomTheHand is a sucker
Motto: "We totally ganked this ship from Tom when he wasn't looking!"
General characteristics
Capacity: 400 passengers
200 cars
140 kegs of Guiness
Infobox Commercial Ship only supports one kind of capacity right now. We only have one "Armament" box; we don't have separate rows for "Guns:" "Missiles:" "Torpedoes:". We don't use separate boxes for light, standard, or full load displacement, or overall and waterline length. We have one "Propulsion" box, not "Boilers", "Engines", "Screws", and "Horsepower". We generally combine similar information into one row. I don't see why all of that information can't be listed in a single "capacity" box.
The infobox just displays the flag(s) in the Career header, so you can put any kind of flag(s) you want in there. Similarly, "ship country" just puts whatever name you use next to the word "Career", so you can put anything you want there, or just use the soon-to-be-created "owner" or "operator" rows.
As I said, I feel putting the ship's name in the header is unnecessary. It's already found in big print one inch up and six inches to the left, and you navigated to the RMS Titanic article, so you know that's the name of the ship. I usually don't put the name into an infobox at all, as it's redundant unless the name changed. This infobox and its predecessor (Infobox Ship) are used in thousands of articles already and their general appearance is a product of long-time consensus; I'm pretty against cluttering the box up with redundant info. TomTheHand 18:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Infobox Commercial Ship has the problem that a lot of articles aren't using it, even if they should (off the top of my head, M/S Isabella (and other articles on ships of the same company) and Navigator of the Seas). I'm not saying I disagree with the way things are done in these boxes now, but there seem to be people out there who would, considering they've go through the trouble of creating infoboxes with different capacity fields and/or name of the ship on top of the infobox.
But, apart from saying "I agree" in a disagreeable way, about the "ship country" and "ship flag" fields... if it is generally agreed that the company outweights the country for commercial ships, would it be possible to call the "ship country" field something else for the sake of clarity? If it's called "ship country", a lot of people will probably continue to put the nation name and flag there. That said, I've no decent idea on what would be a good replacement phrase that would make it clear either country or company can be put there. -- Kjet 19:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that if we're going to use the "ship country" field as a general-purpose owner field it would be better to name it differently, but it would be technically very difficult to remove "ship country" and replace it with "ship owner" because it would be necessary to replace all existing uses.
I've added all of the fields from Infobox Commercial Ship. However, before making other changes I'd really like to have more people involved in the discussion; I disagree with the idea of creating different capacity fields for every possible type of capacity a ship could have and I think there needs to be more demand for it before the infobox should be edited. It seems totally reasonable to me to list different kinds of capacity in one capacity row, as is done for many other types of fields. In the course of editing and updating ship articles, I've seen a lot of different custom fields, but I consider the elimination of custom fields on each article to be a good thing. Let's take this conversation back to WP:SHIPS, since nobody seems to have followed it here. TomTheHand 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Sail Fields

A suggestion for new fields related to the Age of Sail code in the infobox. These terms seem be in common use, at least these days, when giving the specifications of a sailing ship. See USCG Eagle and Peking (ship) pages for custom info boxes that use these terms.

  1. Displacement. I'm not sure of the exact meaning of tons burthen but I believe it is a measure of cargo capacity which is not the same as displacement. Certainly displacement seems to be a more commonly used term, at least these days.
  2. Sail Area. It's commonly used for ships built in the last 200 years or so. It seems to me that sail plan doesn't really cover this.
  3. Length Overall
  4. Length On Deck
  5. Length Waterline
  6. Length Between Perpendiculars. It seems to me that the length field is a bit vague and that further fields could be added that are more precise.

I'm not sure if extra fields are needed for height. Once again, height by itself seems a little vague for me. Is a Height of main mast field needed? TeWaitere 11:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Displacement is rarely given, and very difficult to work out for a ship from that time. Up until some point in the mid 19th century, the weight of a ship was given according to the Builder's Old Measurement, which ultimately is a measure of the ship's carrying capacity, hence tons burthen. Displacement isn't appropriate to use in most instances, except where it is explicitly known. Sail area has potential, I think, but it is not a figure that is commonly given for ships. Where explicitly known, of course, there's no reason why it can't go in. Overall length is quite difficult to calculate for a ship of this kind - it is a figure that is almost never given for a ship, as it is entirely dependent on knowing the exact position of the mizzen mast, the length of the driver boom, the length of the bowsprit, jibboom and flying jibboom, if carried, and the angle at which the bowsprit is carried, and the proportion of the bowsprit carried inside the ship. Obviously coming up with an accurate figure is not so easy. Length on the deck would be better as length on the gun deck, and this would certainly be useful, however, I don't really think it is necessary to have lots of different length entries. Length as it is now allows you to specify what the length is simply by stating in brackets afterwards, eg HMS Leviathan (1790). As for height, well it's a similar situation as with the overall length - it would be something you would have to calculate, as it is a figure that you are not likely to encounter in contemporary documents relating to a particular ship. Martocticvs 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra field: Owner?

I was adding an infobox to an article on a commercial ship that has spent a sizeable chunk of it's career under charter... I was surprised to notice the the infobox doesn't currently have an "owner" field at all. Such a field would be extremely useful for cases when ship has been under charter to another operator, or that have been owned by a company but operated by one it's subsidiaries. If someone could add this it would be greatly appriciated. -- Kjet 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! TomTheHand 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you very much. -- Kjet 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra field: Way number?

Would it be possible to add an optional "Ship way number" field to {{Infobox Ship Career}}? For Liberty ships, for example, that's an available bit of information that could be included. Thanks — Bellhalla 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's right after "Ship yard number". TomTheHand 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ship decks

Can a "Decks: " field be added? This would be primarilly useful on commercial vessels, especially cruise ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Where, exactly? Would just above "ice class" be ok, or would there be a more preferable location? TomTheHand 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good - looks like it would fit in with the other stats in that section of the code. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. TomTheHand 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ship flag (alternate)

Another request ... in the Ship Career section, is it possible to set a condition so that if the header is set to be hidden, then a show for "ship flag" can be shown after "Homeport"? That way, if Ship flag is populated, AND ship header is hidden (normally resulting in the flag no longer showing), then the flag would instead show in the alternate location.
Might need to discuss if this one is worth adding first. I suppose that alternately, the flag could still be shown by using the "flag" template in homeport or similar field. Or maybe better would be adding a "Ship registry" field that could be alternately populated if the flag were not visible via the header. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The header is intended to be hidden primarily in cases where the owner hasn't changed, but some fields need to be repeated anyway. For example, if a navy decommissioned a ship into reserve for a while, then recommissioned her, then decommissioned her again, you'd want to be able to repeat some fields. If the owner has changed, you should use a second Infobox Ship Career with a header indicating the appropriate flag and new owner.
I would suggest that if you want to show flags in places other than the header, you just manually add the image. For example, in the homeport field, after London, stick a little . TomTheHand 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm looking to use this template for cruise ships. For those, their "homeport" may change two or three times per year (winter cruising from southern homeports, summer cruising may be homeported in northern ports). And while placing the flag prominently in the "Career" header is logical for military ships, it's less appropriate for the cruise industry where the flag that the ship flies under may not even be related to any of the ports visited during its cruise schedule (homeport or otherwise).
The more I think about it, the more I think that a "Ship registry" field below the ship name field would be the best way to display these. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, the Career header should only be hidden if you're repeating fields. Even if it's a cruise ship, there should still be a bar that says "Career". If I were editing a cruise ship article, I would put the flag that the ship is registered under into the Career field, though possibly smaller than a flag I stick on a naval article. I'd list all the homeports in one homeport field, and I might put a little flag next to each one. However, I don't think it's necessary to add a ship registry field, because the career header is intended to contain the flag. TomTheHand 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For starters, I have to point out that the "homeport" of a ship is the port in which it's registered, not the port where it is based (several cruise companies abuse the term and use it in the latter meaning - never the less that's incorrect). Second - and I know I've stated this before - I find the header section flag to be problematic for cruise ships, which often enjoy careers under several flags, but there's usually just one article on the ship. Leading to the question of which flag should be displayed, and whether the national flag would deserve to be dislayed that prominently at all for ships that usually fly a flag of convinience. Personally I've thus far solved the problem by simply leaving the main flag field blank and putting the flags in the homeport field (Black Watch (ship) as a decent example).
I know Tom isn't going to agree, but I think it would serve a purpose to (re)create a separate infobox for commercial vessels, which wouldn't feature the flag in such a prominent way and feature separate fields for passenger, cabin, car and freight capacities (a "route" field would also be nice). I do remember our earlier argument on this, but I'd argue that these capacities are so important for a commercial ship that they would deserve to be featured more prominently than just lumped together in the "capacity" field. -- Kjet 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to add a route field. If I were to guess, I'd put it right after homeport; would that be alright? However, when we discussed the capacity issue on WP:SHIPS talk, there really seemed to be strong consensus that for the purposes of infobox simplicity there should only be one capacity field. TomTheHand 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that a "cabin" field would be useful - as most cruiselines only publish the number of passenger cabins, not actual cabins - and even then, the published passenger count usually equal to the number of passenger cabins times two, so having both is somewhat redundant as you can calculate one from the other. I have no opinion on the other capacity fields, as that's not my area of interest. I can see that others may want it, but I have no input on it myself. For cruise ships, I could see a listing of number of restaurants or even number of pools, as that's information frequently searched out by travelers.
Back on the subject of flag ... I can see your point in the need for an alternate commercial ship template. Placing the flag prominently in the header is simply meaningless for the cruise industry and places emphasis on something that should not be emphasized. For Tom, I'll try an examples to illustrate this point:
The Walt Disney Company, which itself is headquartered in California, owns and operates Disney Cruise Lines, based in Florida. This cruise line operates two ships, which are both registered in the Bahamas and fly under that flag. In this case, the country under which the ship is registered is a technicality - an accident of tourism and tax laws. It has nothing whatsoever to do with where the ships are based, homeported, or the country of the owner or operators. I used Disney in this example because of their wide name recognition; but this is not an isolated case, multiple examples of this same situation can be found for other cruise lines.
The current template is great for military and other government owned vessels where the flag under which it flies is of great importance. But for commercial ships, notably cruise ships, this template is not practical without some changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that a big, prominent flag in the header is inappropriate for commercial vessels, use a little one, or don't put one there at all. See Kjet's example. Kjet says that the ship's homeport is where it's registered; if this is correct, then that's a great place to put a little flag, and there's no need for an additional field for a flag. TomTheHand 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I had already stumbled upon the Black Watch prior to the example being given. While it's a doable although kludgy workaround, it would be far more clear to use the term most frequently used: "Registry". While the actual definition of the word "Homeport" is technically the same as "Registry" - the common usage of the words in the cruise industry is different. This is a fault of the industry itself, which frequently uses the word "Homeport" incorrectly in travel brochures - but because of that, the passenger base also views the terms differently. Here's an example of how the terms are commonly used within the indistry: "Homeport" is most commonly a reference to the port from which the ship has scheduled cruises - if a cruise ship is running repeated cruises from Los Angeles down to the Mexican coast, it's said to be homeported in Los Angeles - the same for ships running cruises from Vancouver, Canada up to Alaska is said to be homeported in Vancouver, or out of Miami into the caribean. Meanwhile, their flag of registry is always the same, and may have nothing to do with where it's sailing from/to. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to need to back away from this one for the moment and let you and Kjet discuss this. I would personally use homeport for registry and use the soon-to-be-created route field for ports that the uses regularly but isn't registered at. I would say that even if the cruise industry uses the term "homeport" in a technically incorrect fashion, we shouldn't do the same here, but it's not something I know enough about. TomTheHand 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I had been so focused on the common industry usage of the term, I had failed to consider the potential consequences of perpetuating an incorrect usage of a term here. You are correct that just because an industry uses a term incorrectly, we should not do likewise here ... unless it is already documented in a reliable source that the term is used in an alternate way in a specific industry. For now, I'll also hold off on this until I have time to check other sources - and give Kjet time to provide input as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally someone who understands that commercials ships cannot be reated in the same way as military ships! (No offense Tom or anyone else for that matter). The problem with the current way this works is that even though people like Barek and myself will not put big flag in the infobox signifying a flag flown by tax reasons, other people will do it. A good example is the recently sunk Explorer: her career box displays a big flag of Liberia, but when you look at the actual data in the box it covers her entire career, also under the Norwegian and Panamian flags. So essentially what you get is incorrect information displayed because the infobox is geared towards military vessels. I would highly prefer it if we could get a version of "Infobox Ship Career" that is customised for commercial ships, where there is no fields called "flag" or "country" in the header (what is could have is a field for years the ship has been in service).
The homeport field: Since the incorrect usage is actually fairly common in the industry, one thing to consider could be changing the name of the field into "Port of Registry", which would be clearer and possibly technically more correct since the "homeport" is usually just a port in which the ship is registered and has nothing to do with it's home. However, I definately don't want to see the homeport field used incorrectly. The simplest option would be to do as Tom suggest above and use the upcoming "route" field. I realise a cruise ship rarely has an actual fixed route, but for those you could write in something like "cruises out of Los Angeles". Actually the field should probably called "itenary" (or "itenaries") instead, which could be used for either an actual fixed route (for ferries and cruiseferries) or changing cruises with the same port of departure.
Other possible fields: The cabin capacity (and note that I mean capacity, not number of cabins) field idea would mostly be usable for ferries & cruiseferries, where the ships carry a number of "cabinless" passengers and as such the number of passengers carried is different from the number of passengers with a actual bed in a cabin. And there are plenty of other fields that we could consider adding to the infobox - some sources even list the number of elevators. However I'm not sure if these should be listed in the infobox, I'd propagate the usage of a "Decks" or "Facilities" section within the actual article body text to display these details. I hope this won't have too many typos.... I'm writing this in the middle of the night after waking up at 1 AM for no reason. -- Kjet (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent for clarity) I would imagine that if it's agreed that commercial ships should not display a flag or note a country, then the Ship flag and Ship country fields should just be removed from the commercial ship copy-and-paste code. I doubt you'll have problems with people importing it from elsewhere. I've also been thinking about changing the display text of the field, but I do have one concern: ballistic missile submarines have a homeport as well, which would not be accurately described as a port of registry. How about... adding a registry field, as Barek originally suggested, and removing the homeport field from the commercial vessel copy-and-paste code? On the capacity subject, we had an extensive discussion about this a few months ago, and there was strong consensus that we shouldn't have a bunch of different capacity fields. If you'd like to discuss it again on WP:SHIPS, please do so, but forking the infobox because you don't agree with consensus is not an option. TomTheHand (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing the flag and country fields from the copy + paste code sounds like a good idea to me. But to clarify, I'm not saying commercial vessels should not note a country or display a flag, but they shouldn't be displayed in such a dominant way. But yeah, if you remove the fields then it should be fine. The registry field idea also sounds like the best solution to this.
And on the capacity discussion... I participated in the original discussion and just reviewed the whole thing. The problem with that discussion was that I was the only person participating in the entire discussion whos main area of interest are commercial vessels. What our discussion here shows is that that there are notable differences between military and civilian vessels that should be taken into account, and quite frankly most WP:SHIPS members are so concentrated on military vessels that they lack the knowledge required to make decisions on these maters. An equilent would be putting me and Barek (OK, I've no idea how much he knows about warships) in charge of decision what fields include on an infobox for military vessels. If his knowledge on them as as slim as mine the result would be a complete disaster.
That said, I also realise that I'm whining against a consensus and blaming other people to be too uninformed to make decisions is not exactly good conduct, so I will shut up about this particular subject now. -- Kjet (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of removing the flag and country from the copy-paste code for commercial vessels, and instead use a registry code ... but the template will need to be adjusted to permit removing the ship flag field from the copy-paste code. I tried removing the line earlier today, and it resulted in some micro-printing of space-holder text where the image would normally go. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention ... I'm still looking for an online source; but my copy of the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language - Deluxe Edition c1996 lists two definitions of "homeport". The first is the port where the ship is registered, the second is the port out of which the ship is operated but not necessarily registered. So there is a source that supports using the two terms for different meanings. Sadly; Webster's online dictionary isn't as verbose on the definition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so here's what I've done: I've removed country and flag from the commercial vessel copy-and-paste code. I've fixed the problem with the spaceholder text when the flag is omitted (sorry, didn't realize it did that). I've added a field called Ship registry, which displays as "Port of Registry" but which I can change if necessary. I've removed homeport from the commercial vessel code, because it appears to have an ambiguous meaning and we should be clear. I forgot to add "Route", but where do you guys want it to go?
Kjet, I understand your frustration, but in general infoboxes try to use the minimal number of fields to express the information. GraemeLeggett pointed out that aircraft use a single capacity field. We have a single armament field, even though a ship might have three or more different types of guns plus torpedo tubes and even missiles. We have a single armor field that we use to describe armor all over a ship. We have a single propulsion field, which is intended to describe any elements of propulsion necessary. While I admit that commercial vessels are not something I know a whole lot about, I do know how Wikipedia tends to use infoboxes, and I think a single capacity field is in line with that. TomTheHand (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the changes look good to me. I've tried them in four articles that I've been using to learn the template's code. For the text description, I think just saying "Registry" is sufficient, but I have no problem with leaving it as "Port of Registry".
For the "route" field - I'll leave that to others to determine. Other commercial vessels such as freight would likely be on more consistent routes, so a route field is likely more applicable to those types of vessels. But cruise lines frequently change a ship's itinerary each year or even more frequently to better support more popular/profitable ports - and myself, I'm not prepared to begin maintaining the frequent route changes in the cruise line articles. If others want to do so, they can begin implementing it.
I still have no opinion on the capacity fields. While I can see the value in some cases, I also see Tom's point about maintaining info box usage styles compatible with other info boxes on WP. But, as a compromise, I could see having two fields (assuming it's not already there - I didn't search through all fields for this split): one for gross capacity, and the other for types/forms of load capacity. I don't know if that would suffice or not, I'll leave it to others to explore. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Tonnage" field is intended for gross capacity, while specific types of capacity would be described in the "Capacity" field. I would be glad to change to just "Registry", but will wait to see if Kjet has a strong opinion. I do think the more descriptive title will make it easier for people to understand how to use the field, and prevent people from misusing it, but brevity has its own advantages. TomTheHand (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Quick reply as I'm in a bit of hurry. "Registry" and "port of registry" are not exactly the same thing to my understanding ("registry" can also refer to the classification society used), hence I'd rather go with "Port of Registry" for the sake of clarity (we might consider putting in a "classification society" field at some point). "Route" field... I agree that maintaining this for cruise ships is too big of a job. Even putting in just the departure port as I proposed above would be a big job (especially if - like me - you attempt to outline the ship's entire career in the box, when the field would get immensely bloated). I'd propose putting in the "route" field and only using it for ferries and freighters - if we call it route people will probably realise it should not be used for cruise ships. I'll shut up about extra capacity fields for the time being - you are probably right anyway. -- Kjet (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly where should the route field go? TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My initial impulse would be to put it between "operator" and "ordered", as it's a fairly important piece of information and related to the operator. -- Kjet (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. TomTheHand (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Excellent. Thank you. -- Kjet (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] small tweak needed, and question

In the full code version, at least one field (Troops) is displaying without a colon—see USS Essex (LHD-2). As to the question: am I missing it, or do we have a field for aircraft carried but no field for land/amphibious craft carried? Maralia (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the "Troops:" thing. The existing field "Ship boats" displays as "Boats and landing craft carried:"; is that sufficient? TomTheHand (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That works, thanks. Maralia (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field: Auto Deck Clearance

For use on ferry articles, could a field for "Auto Deck Clearance" be added? I suppose this would fit in best somewhere after the capacity field. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we come up with a term that can be used for both ferries and aircraft carriers (for hangar deck clearance)? Would "Deck clearance" be sufficiently clear? TomTheHand (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think "Deck clearance" would work fine. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think deck clearance was a big deal for early aircraft carriers. If a carrier was built in the 1930s with deck clearances meant specifically for the aircraft of that era, they were at a disadvantage ten years later when aircraft had grown considerably.
I've added a field called "Ship deck clearance" that displays as "Deck clearance:". It goes just after "Decks:". I added it to the commercial vessel code, but not the warship code yet... maybe I'll fork the warship code to have separate aircraft carrier code. If you want to fork the commercial vessel code into separate code for ferries, cruise ships, etc, please feel free; I'll help you if you need it. TomTheHand (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The code (at least for commercial ships) is missing the = sign. Forking the commercial code might be an interesting idea... although the only difference I can think of at the moment between cruise ship & ferry code is the deck clearance field - not sure if that really warrants a forked version. -- Kjet (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for the heads-up. TomTheHand (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kjet ... forking the commercial code might be something to consider down the road as the template evolves further; but at this point, I don't think it's needed for the few variances that exist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Call me a fan of standardized templates, but I feel that having one central template sure makes maintenance and updates a lot easier. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting forking the template itself - I'm strongly against that. What I'm suggesting is coming up with more specialized copy-and-paste code. TomTheHand (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field: Maximum Speed?

Continuing to bother Tom with ideas for new fields... For several commercial vessels (this might be the same for navy ships, I've no clue), the ship data given by the owner/builder usually displays the ship's service speed, but further research reveals that she has sailed faster (sometimes a lot faster) during her sea trials - case point being M/S Oscar Wilde with the company reported service speed at 21,5 knots but reported top speed at 26 knots. So, I was wondering if it would be prodent to have separate fields for "service speed" and "maximum speed"? Or if both figures should be entered in the current speed field along the lines of "21,5 knots (service)/26 knots (maximum)"?`-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjet (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

All the various kinds of speed (service, cruising, design, actual, maximum, submerged, surfaced, etc) are posted in the single speed field, with a little note explaining what they are. TomTheHand (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would be inclined to just have one speed field, with other notations listed there. At least when it comes to most military ships, most speeds from "cruising" to flank speed are classified. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the speed figures for most modern military ships are classified. However, we have good detail for ships from WWII and before, and we've put all speeds into one field in the past. TomTheHand (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No reason to change it then. I always presumed there would be just one reported speed for warships, hence the question. -- Kjet (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in two Ferry templates?

I brought up deprecating two ferry templates at Template_talk:Infobox_Ferry#Proceed_with_Merge? and Template talk:WAFerry. There are very few articles that link to either, but one concern was raised with the Searoad article. There needs to be some cleanup (splitting the ships out of the company article and into their own articles); but the ships currently display some values currently not available in {{tl:Template:Infobox Ship Example}}, from what I can see the missing ones are mainly Gearbox, ramp dimensions, and load. Any opinions on adding these fields? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deprecating both templates is definately a good idea, the more standardization we have the better. As for the fields not existing in this template... I'm extremely ignorant on the technical issues, but could Gearbox be be placed under Propulsion? It's a part of the propulsion system anyway. For the ramp dimensions, my initial thought was to simply eliminate the field. But that said, many companies provide that data, so maybe we could add a Ramp dimensions field, in which all relevant ramp info could be added (it should be noted that a ship can have ramps other than just the ones leading to and from the car deck). No idea on the Load field(s). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It also seems to me that Gearbox could go under Propulsion. What is Load, exactly? Could it go under Capacity, or is that not really what it is? TomTheHand (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
After looking closer at the Searoad article, in the context used, it appears that axle load and point load could be listed under capacity. I also agree that gearbox could go under propulsion. That just leaves the two entries for "Bow ramp" and "Stern ramp". To be honest, I have mixed feelings on adding this field - I suppose it could be merged with capacity, but I'm not sure it's really a good fit in that section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Would one "Ramps:" field get the job done? I wonder if a Ramps field would also be useful for LSTs. TomTheHand (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A single field for both ramps should work fine. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was the one with concerns with the Searoad article, and don't have any concerns with what you propose. I just need to split the ships from the company. Wongm (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a preference on where the "Ramps" field should be sequenced? I'm thinking just after "Deck clearance", does that seem reasonable? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
After "Deck clearance" is the most logical place, I (too) think. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. TomTheHand (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the field. So far, I've only documented it under the full code and commercial. There was a suggestion of using it for LSTs, but I wasn't certain if that was decided as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence of fields

In the displayed template in articles, would anyone object to moving the "Port of Registry" field to show immediately after "Ship name"? Or at least up to being just after "Operator"? It seems far more relevant to those pieces of information than it does to the status related fields where it currently displays. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If no objections, should I go ahead and make this change? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say "I agree" before but apparently forgot. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine with me. Guys, I'm sorry, I've been having a really rough time off-wiki lately and I haven't had time for much editing. I know I should have made these changes should have been made weeks ago. TomTheHand (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the field, per the discussion above. Tom, sorry to hear about off-wiki issues, but those always take priority - so understood. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: no one specified if there was a preference for after ship name or after ship operator (both had been suggested), so I went the more conservative route and only moved it up to being after the operator for now. If it should be moved up to after name, that could be done later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The current way (after "operator") is preferrable IMO - placing it above the operator would again signify the registry nation over the owner (on commercial ships anyway), and I think we agree that we don't want that. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Conversion of Units of Measurement

Wondering if conversion of units of measurement could be added to the Infobox ... length in feet to metres, speed in knots to km/h, etc. I've tried to do so in HMS Warrior (1860) using the convert template and selecting what I thought were appropriate units. A few other Infoboxes I've seen (for example Template:Infobox_settlement) seem to use automatic conversion. Does it make sense here? What fields should be converted? What units of measurement should be used? As an alternative to automatic conversion, editors could be encouraged to use the convert template in the Infobox with suggestions for where and using which units, like used with Template:Infobox River. I have to admit that the coding for automatic conversion is beyond my WP skill. papageno (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done conversions on all recent infoboxes I've created. The biggest problem with putting in built-in conversions (apart from the possibility of people not knowing how to use them) is which units we should put in first, imperial or metric? And can we really make a common rule on which should be put first, when some sources provide only metric figures while others provide only imperial ones. As to knots to km/h conversion, I've always found them a bit silly - and shouldn't they also include a miles per hour figure (as knot = nautical miles per hour ≠ miles per hour)? Plus I don't think the "kn" abbreviation for knot in the current conversion table is recognisable enough (althought that is a subject to a different discussion). Encouraging people to use the conversions is definately a good idea. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
My problem with the convert template is that it will only accept one input value. So you would have to enter 168.5 ft instead of the more useful 168 ft 6 in, so I have not been using it so far. Martocticvs (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I see the challenges with autoconversion, and with selecting the most appropriate units. Perhaps we can encourage people to use the convert template with at least one metric and one non-metric measurement of their choice, which seems to be the most common arrangement elsewhere, and leave it up to them to decide which one they'd prefer to put first; I have no preference for one or the other being first. As for suggested units, my votes would be for (no-metric and metric respectively): feet&inches and metres for lengths; knots and km/h for speed; long tons and tonnes for displacement; inches and centimetres for small lengths (like gun barrel diameters?); square feet and square metres for areas (useful for deck size/ sail area?). I would suggest normal style guidelines (I think this is normal): use full spelling and linking (latter using the lk=on parameter of the convert template) the first mention of a unit of measurement in an Infobox, and the first mention in the body text; thereafter, abbreviations (using the abbr=on parameter of the convert template) and no linking.
I take Martocticvs' point too about feet and inches, and did not see any way to address it, until accidentally stumbling onto this section of the convert template talk page. Turns out there is now a solution using convert (and was one previously using another template). The discussion was started by someone interested in editing articles about ships! This is an exmaple of using the convert template to do what you request just above: 168 ft 6 in (51.4 m). papageno (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case, I may as well start using it then! Thanks for showing me that. Martocticvs (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, conversions from feet & inches are now working. I've also got conversions the other way running, e.g. {{convert|12.45|m|ftin}} will give you "12.45 metres (40 ft 10 in)". What I would like to see, though, would be {{convert}}'s being built into this template. So, for example, ...
instead of typing in Ship height= {{convert|20.45|m}} you'll just type Ship height m= 20.45
instead of typing in Ship height= {{convert|124.5|ft}} you'll just type Ship height ft= 124.5
instead of typing in Ship height= {{convert|124|ft|6|in}} you'll just type Ship height ft= 124
and Ship height in= 6
... and this template will convert automatically (using {{convert}}). Jɪmp 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official numbers and letters

How come we don't add IMO numbers, official numbers, maritime mobile service identities and call signs as fields to the ship infobox? For example, the BC ferry "Spirit of British Columbia": IMO number 9015668, official number 815277, MMSI 316001268 and call sign VOSM.

I attempted to implement these fields myself, but that was reverted. --  Denelson83  22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are all such similar pieces of information, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to add four separate fields. We try to condense similar information into single fields. TomTheHand (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
So then how about we add one field that says "identification"? --  Denelson83  23:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. I'd like to wait until tomorrow to see if anyone has any further suggestions before adding the field. TomTheHand (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Identification sound fine for me. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but what would be the benefit of adding this? The ship infobox is already getting pretty big, and when its fully filled out it often dominates the text of the article. Are there databases of these numbers which are available? - I doubt that they'd be of interest or use to many people, though maybe I'm wrong. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Official numbers can be used to search for further vessel histories. An IMO number stays with a hull throughout its entire life, so searching the 'Net for a specific IMO number has potential for getting quite a lot of info.
Also, MMSIs are used in the Automatic Vessel Identification System, or AIS. There are several AIS tracking sites on the Web, such as siitech.net, and some ships only show up on AIS tracking maps under their MMSIs. --  Denelson83  18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I support adding a single "Identification" field to be shared for these codes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "Ship identification" field. Sorry for the delay. I haven't been on-wiki very consistently lately. TomTheHand (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding anchors

I would like to add the anchor specs to the infobox at USS Constitution from the "specs" section so as to clean the article up. I've experimented with trying to add the line myself but with no luck. Ideas? --Brad (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can do it as a one-off, custom field for that article only, or we can add it to the infobox. Is it a piece of information that's often talked about for Age of Sail ships? I'd rather not permanently add it to the infobox if it's rare. TomTheHand (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know if it's often talked about with age of sail ships but in particular to Constitution, her kedge anchors were used as one means of escape from a British squadron in 1812 so they're worth listing if the information is there. Otherwise I would leave the information out. I used the full code box on Constitution because there were so many specs worth putting in. Whether or not you want to make anchor permanent I will leave up to you but it would definitely help get Constitution up to FA. --Brad (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I finally did this by using a single custom field on Constitution :-/ That was a heck of a delay. Please feel free to harass me on my talk page when I do this in the future. TomTheHand (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge together instead - Template:Infobox Ship & Template:Infobox Ship Begin

Why created a new template. -- Fernvale (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refit Armament Layout

Again this template cannot split up the sections for the years that each refit was on the ship. The previous ship table like USS Iowa (BB-61) looked neated than current one USS Missouri (BB-63). The USS Missouri armament info looked messy now. -- ~~

In response to both your concerns raised above:
  • I'm not sure why you suggest merging {{Infobox Ship}} and {{Infobox Ship Begin}}. Infobox Ship Begin was based on Infobox Ship, but has superior utility in that its modular format allows inclusion of multiple careers with different navies, as well as offering formats for warships, commercial ships, and ship classes.
  • I agree that the row span function in the table at USS Iowa (BB-61) looks nice. I'd be interested in exploring modifying {{Infobox Ship Begin}} to support armament by year. From a coding standpoint, though, it's gonna be a pain in the neck. Maralia (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it can be done by using multiple "Infobox Ship Characteristics" sections, the same way that multiple carreer sections are done. I'll correct the coding on the USS Missouri article to demonstrate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the USS Missouri article. In this version, I've hidden the second "characteristics" header, but it's also possible to add text so one characteristics header could read "General characteristics (1943)" and the second header reads "General characteristics (1984)". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about using the header caption; that's a much better solution. I've modified USS Missouri (BB-63) to use the headers to indicate the relevant years for the armament. Fernvale, do you see how it's done? Maralia (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Another option, that I've used in some commercial ships, is to list the first characteristics caption "(as built)", and the second one "(1984 refit)" or "(1984 modernization)". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Barek, for working on the Missouri article! Fernvale, USS Iowa (BB-61) doesn't use {{Infobox Ship}}, the previous ship template. It uses a totally custom table for that article only. I like the way it looks, but I'm not at all sure how to add that kind of capability to a template infobox. I'll see if I can figure something out. Infobox Ship has no advantages over {{Infobox Ship Begin}}, and lacks many of its capabilities. TomTheHand (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hull material

Hi. Should there be a field that specifies the hull material? I am working on adding this infobox to a couple tall ship articles and in some cases they have steel hulls (where you might expect to find wood). —Noah 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe by using |Ship type= Steel Hulled Tall Ship ? or something in that manner? --Brad (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with using the "ship type" field for those articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with using "ship type" as well. If the ship is a member of a class, the "ship class" field displays as "Class and type:" and you can type "Something-class steel-hulled tall ship". TomTheHand (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that will work. I appreciate the help. Also, is there a list of "ship types"? —Noah 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a formal list, but we have Category:Ship types, which contains all of our articles on ship types. TomTheHand (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request default image

One easy thing we could do to standardize appearance is provide a default along the lines of [[Image:No Photo Available.svg|300px|No photograph is currently available.]] when "Ship image" is not specified. There are currently several different "Insert Image Here" image/alt-text combinations being used. If an editor has a strong conviction that [[Image:IIH.png|300px|Please contribute an image!!!]] should be used on a particular page, the default can always be overridden. Cheers. HausTalk 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble with that. The template does provide No Photo Available.svg by default when there's no Ship image= present, but when you supply Ship image= and leave it blank it overrides the default. Not sure how to avoid that. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two issues

I would like to see two tweaks to the template:

A tweak allowing for mutiple recomissionings (when aplicable); something like
|commision_1=<confict>
|commission date=
|decomission date=
|commission_2=conflict
...and so forth. This would help for articles wherin the ships concerned were reactivated and deactivates multiple times. At present we lack a system of this nature, and for articles like USS New Jersey (BB-62) the various dates for re/de commissioning make the template look cluttered, all the more so becuase they do not give the context of the reactivations, only the date for the reactivations.

The other thing I would like to see is additional fields for the preceeded by and proceeded by tabs. Some ships and classes were cancelled, and others ships (notably subs) would benifit from mutilple listings: in the case of sub classes, mutiple listings based on type and chronology would help keep the preceeded by and succsedded by tabs stable; at present they fluacte becuase some feel the tabs should only represent the class type while other beleive the tabs should only represent the chronology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2008

I'm up for adding a recommission reason field; what should its display text be? I also see what you're saying about design predecessor vs. chronological predecessor, but I'm not sure what display text should be used to make its meaning clear without being worded awkwardly. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my long delay, I had forgetten that I posted a question here until revisiting New Jersey's infobox. For a recomissioning I would propose doing this one of two ways: either have the field on the left give the cause for recomissioning like

World War II
Commisioned
Decommissioned
Korean War
Commisioned
Decomissioned

and so forth. Alternatively, we could add the conflict to the side of the dates, like

Commissioned <date> (WWII)
Decomissioned <date>
Commissioned <date> (Korean War)
Decomissioned <date>

As to the issue of how to address the design vs chronoligical sucessor/predecessor, why not split the field up by adopting "design predecessor" as a field in the template. I'm not sure how to reword chronology though, perhaps we should seek input from SHIPS and MILHIST and see if anyone suggests something that works. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Callsign

Can a callsign field be added? It would probably be useful in a lot of ship articles. 83.226.220.102 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Callsign and similar information should go in the "Ship identification=" field. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship Classification Society

The name of classification society that classes the ship is very important. It is not currently in the infobox template. Ideally a history of class society would be helpful, but the current one would be adequate. Ships that change or get bounced from class society to class society typically have a number of safety or operational issues. Some of the smaller class societies have a history of looking past safety issues. In an accident, the class society is one of the first organizations to be called. Therefore I think it would be helpful to have this information, even though it may not mean much to some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj245 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This falls under the same umbrella as requests we get for callsign, imo #, official number, and so forth. My feeling is that this info is fundamentally important for merchant ships (navy guys: consider trying to identify the 3 USS Reuben James without side-numbers) and might be best contained in a separate module. Ok, now that I got that off my chest, disagree vehemently with me, Tom. :) HausTalk 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd be much happier adding a classification society field than many of the others. This is a single, distinct piece of information that doesn't really fit anywhere else, and I agree that it's important. The reason I fight about stuff like callsign, imo#, official number, and so forth is because they're extremely similar pieces of information, and I frankly think that if you listed them all in separate fields you'll end up with a gigantor infobox, half of whose length is full of information that is useful to very few people. I think all those little numbers are best stuffed into one field.
If there are no objections to adding classification society, I'd be happy to do it; I'll let it sit for a couple of days to see if anyone else needs to weigh in. TomTheHand (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick comment about these numners: IMO numbers are used in the industry the way a primary key is in a database table. If you want to go to DNV or ABS or the USCG and look up a ship, you can put in a name and sift through a bunch of results, or put in an IMO number and get either 0 or 1 result. Callsigns are nice to know, but if you have an IMO number, you only need to do 2 searches at most to find a call sign. Nobody knows MMSI numbers -- they're written down, and you can look them up off of IMO number. Official numbers aren't widely used -- port state control and Navy/Coast Guard ships ask for them from time to time, but again nobody knows them off the top of their head. Cheers. HausTalk 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking the other day that a classification society field would be quite useful. It could be placed above or below the identification field, perhaps? And the identification field is perfectly sufficient for all the identifiers a ship might have, and as a field it's nicely versatile so that people can put in the IMO number and other numbers if they prefer. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)