Talk:List of United States Navy cruisers

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.
List rated as List-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Some sort of marker should be given to cruisers that are currently in active service. Kingturtle 05:45 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Stan 06:08 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

What a daunting task this is. I note that USS Albany CLG 10 is absent from the list. (I looked closer at the CA 123 entry) I have a pic of it in Mayport Fla. in Oct. 71. Perhaps ships which have multiple designations should have both listed, e.g. CA123/CG10.
I'd like to contribute to the knowledge base and being an old destroyerman I guess I'd prefer to start there. Is there a blank formatted page to make it simpler and preserve continuity? StinKerr 00:41, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One of the values of having a side-by-side list, instead of two separate lists, is that one can validate that they both list all the same ships if the two are the same length. That useful property has now been destroyed by adding some to one list but not the other, and it's now so scrambled I can't tell what's wrong with it. Might be easier just to revert the anon's change, even though it added some good info bits. Stan 21:36, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Although I'm all for images, it's tricky to place them in a two-column list so that they don't lay on top of the list. So I've reverted the additions, in the hopes that someone will figure out how to do this right (I don't know myself). Stan 05:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yea no problem, I added the pictures back and changed the formatting as well. Nautical 19:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was a side-by-side list, now the images make one half much longer than the other, so it's impossible to see if both lists have the same members, not to mention that the images interrupt the list, making it harder to scan. The images should be floating off to the right, not intruding inline. It's possible that it could be done with a three-column table somehow. Stan 22:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes this is something I didn't like about the current setup either. Im working on ways of having the format be better, such as three column thing, but I have not settled on what to do. Im thinking either moving them off to the far right as you sugest, or perhaps put them in a center column (maybe 40-20-40 percent widths). Nautical 23:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Far right has the advantage that for most people it is currently blank, so you're not "stealing" space that had information in it. Hard part is that some browser windows (such as on PDAs, which I've seen used to look at WP) are rather narrow, and you don't want the images to crowd out the list then. In fairness, the two-column list is somewhat nonstandard, WP has its own syntax for that sort of table now. Stan 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well this is something to consider, all these screen resolutions. I admit I tend to cater to the higher screen resolutions (being what I normally use) and since the trend seems to be towards higher res. I do somtimes rescale the text though to get a better idea of how the formatting goes if when the text must be larger. One idea- how about on the far left as a column? Might be easier to make it line up with the ship names too. Nautical 22:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)