Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.


Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 to 2005
  2. January 2006 to June 2006
  3. July 2006 to December 2006
  4. January 2007 to June 2007
  5. July 2007 to September 2007
  6. October 2007 to November 2007
  7. December 2007 to January 2008
  8. February 2008 to 18 March 2008
  9. 19 March 2008 -

Contents

Two items that I believe are problems

I'm bringing over to wikiproject ships the text I just added to Image talk:IIH.png. My opinion is both of these things should be addressed.

  • I just accidently ran into this when looking up CSS Charleston. In my opinion, I think this makes the infobox look unprofessional. My first thought was that the infobox was using an image from a 3rd-party image server somewhere on the internet, and the image no longer existed. I think instead this image should be a 100% pure transparent image of either the same size or 1x1 pixel to hide the existence from the users. Remember that Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors. In this case, having a glaring INSERT IMAGE HERE at the top of the article turns the article into a memo for future editors. --Stephane Charette 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking through some of the related articles that use this image, I note that some have infoboxes with text such as insert caption here and (insert link to larger image here). This is similar to the image problem described above, and makes it difficult for the reader to interpret the article/infobox as authorative, since it makes it look more like we're viewing the article in the middle of an edit session. Two quick examples of this would be USS Takanis Bay (CVE-89) and USS Munda (CVE-104). --Stephane Charette 05:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, I noticed that too the other day and thought it ugly. I didn't use it when I created CSS Archer and others. Sometimes there just won't be an image.plange 06:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The image is used to quickly identify which articles still need images. It's very handy for those of us who do maintenance on the Project. However, I'd be happy with something that looked nicer or was more transparent. Also, I think the text "insert caption here" should be removed. Jinian 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What about for ships that will never have a photo? There just simply isn't one. We have some of those in the CSN plange 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts on my above observation? plange 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, on the one hand, I agree with you that the "Insert Image Here" looks bad, but on the other hand, I think a line drawing or something could (should?) theoretically be provided for ships without images even if no photo could ever exist. A quick and dirty fix could be to insert a "|Ship image=" line into the Ship table of articles where the IIH should be removed. That would remove the IIH and just leave a blank space up there. TomTheHand 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates for listing officers and crew?

I've just been making a bulleted list but then it occurred to me to ask here and see if anyone has done this on other ship articles and has a nice table, etc.? See CSS Jamestown -plange 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be, is this appropriate encyclopedic information to be included? Some ships were in commission for decades with some very obscure commanders. I certainly wouldn't want to make this standard for every ship, just because we have the data. Not sure how relevant the commanders for Jamestown are to the history of the ship. Jinian 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I think it's relevant, at least for what I'm writing about (CSN) since it only had a 4 year span it wouldn't be out of control. I know if I was looking up the Jamestown for a paper I would expect to see its commanders, and maybe even some of its more notable officers.plange 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it simpler to just work it into the text? A change of command is a fairly obvious thing to mention in the usual narrative flow of things, and any officer notable enough to be listed seperately would probably be significant enough to mention in the text. Shimgray | talk | 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I am looking at it more like an infobox where the user can quickly see the info without having to wade through the article. plange 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
commentbox
comment text If only we had a infobox for everything, then we wouldn't have to write articles
signature Gdr 18:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
wow, sorry I asked the question. Didn't think I'd get ridiculed for it. That's obviously not what I'm wanting to do Gdrplange 18:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Category merges/renames/deletions

I thought it might be a good idea to start a new subject heading to list merges/renames/deletions. These are all related to the above proposal for reorganizing Ships by country. If you support the proposal, please vote on all of these individually. If you do not support the proposal and vote against these, please help to come up with a better proposal for the reorganization! Unconstructive criticism is unhelpful and just helps maintain the mess that we have now.

Added Friday, July 14, 2006:

Added Monday, July 17, 2006:

Further discussion on categorization of Category:Ships by country

A couple of people have now voted "oppose" to merges and renames related to fixing Category:Ships by country. I'd like to start up some discussion to figure out why. I hope you guys who voted oppose will join in.

GraemeLeggett said the following:

  • Oppose categorisation works well at moment, no need to fix it.

Look at Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers, which contains four class categories, one era category, five ship articles, and six ship class articles. It is a complete mess of people throwing random stuff in there; it does not "work well." There is no logical scheme applied to it at all.

So what do you oppose about the proposal? Do you oppose what should go in them (Class cats, eras and ship articles, as seen at Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom)? If so, what should be placed in the category instead?

Or do you oppose naming categories by country instead of by navy? There's plenty of room for debate here, but there are serious problems to be solved in either case. Please give a proposal for how Category:Ships by country should be structured. My proposal is as follows:

Ships by country >> Ships of (country name) >> Naval ships of (country name) >> (Ship type) of (country name) >> {optional navy disambiguation, for civil wars and such} >> Class categories, era categories, and ship articles.

TomTheHand 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on Talk:Royal Navy#Categories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force#Categories indicates that the problem is with the rename, not the categorization proposal. Here are my issues with "Royal Navy":

  1. Anglocentricism - Every monarchy has a "Royal Navy." The British Royal Navy is just the biggest and most important one. I've noticed that User:Jooler has been going around replacing "British Royal Navy" with simply "Royal Navy." This is an example of that Anglocentrism: the UK's Royal Navy is the only one, and there's no need to clarify.
  2. Lack of clarity - Not everyone knows that the "Royal Navy" is the navy of the UK.
  3. Lack of consistency - Naming categories after the navy involved makes it harder to find the navy you want if you don't know its name. Naming categories after the country makes it easy for everyone.
  4. Problems when navies change names - How do you deal with this situation? Germany's navy went through at least five names in the 20th century alone.

I acknowledge that there is an issue with historical accuracy with the "United Kingdom" categories before 1800. However, I don't believe that issue outweighs all of the disadvantages of categorizing by navy.

We rarely use the official name of a navy. For example, the Russian Navy's official name translates to Military Maritime Fleet. The navy of Italy is called Marina Militare, or Military Navy. The French Navy is the Marine Nationale, or National Navy. I doubt you'd want to use these names, and I don't see why the UK's navy is an exception to the rule. TomTheHand 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Less bothered by "correctness", more concerned about "accessability". If I want to read about the navy of say, Switzerland (it did have one! with a British Admiral! we could sell spaghetti to Italy (did that too)), I wouldn't know the French/ German/ italian name for it, so I'd go through the country name. Not sure who this helps.
BTW, how many English speaking countries are kingdoms with a "Royal Navy"? ONE. So why use the prefix "British" - it's tautology. Just as daft as referring to the "American FBI" or "American NASA" or "Italian Regia Marina". Does "HMS" also get changed? If the Danes or Dutch or Thais refer to their own navies as "Royal Navy" in their own languages, that is fine. Folks at 137 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
British Royal Navy seems to most to be a tautologism which may be why jooler changed it however if it is not clear then a reader can either following the link (its what they are there for) or "British" can be reinserted. In your own words "biggest and most important one" to which "most famous" can justifiably be added. I think the cases for anglocentrism and clarity are not proven, others may diasgree.
I personally use categories for jumping sideways through articles not as a starting point for looking for things so I have personally don't get the consistency issue.
For some nations/countries "ships of X" may be necessary for instance where there is a distinct change in the nation eg the Imperial Germany/Nazi Germany/Modern Germany split or eg Ships of the Ottoman Empire/ships of Turkey though for the former the Navy name change tracks the state change too. GraemeLeggett 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so you'd prefer to have Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, etc in separate cats? I see the logic in it, but I still feel like era cats are the place to do that kind of thing. If consensus is to do it that way, I'll implement it that way. TomTheHand 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you that accessibility is the thing to aim for. I don't think people should have to know that Italy's navy used to be know as the Regia Marina, but changed to Marina Militare in 1946, in order to be able to find a ship. Categories should be laid out for ease of navigation for people who are seeking information, not people who already know all about it. The Royal Navy is better known than the Regia Marina, but that doesn't make the problem disappear, it just means fewer people will have it.
The problem I see with the reasoning in your second paragraph is that we call the Dutch Navy the Royal Netherlands Navy. We don't refer to it as Koninklijke Marine. While "Royal Navy" alone would generally be assumed (by people who know the topic and are native English speakers) to be the navy of the UK, it's still ethnocentric and potentially unclear to non-native speakers. It isn't just as daft as your examples. There are other Royal Navies. As you brought up, there's the Danes, the Dutch, and the Thais. There's also the Norwegians and the Swedes off the top of my head. There are not other NASAs.
I believe people from the UK are rightfully proud of their navy and as a result are very insistent on it being called by its proper name. However, it's extremely inconsistent; we refer to very few navies by their native name. We should be doing one or the other. TomTheHand 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on this (and please correct me, if I get it wrong -- My connection is more on the merchant navy side of things) is that of nationality -- AFAIK, the Royal Navy is the British navy, and not that of the United Kingdom (although it's duties include protection of Northern Ireland (so the rest of the UK), but also the Isle of Man (not in the UK, but part of the British Isles), the Channel Islands, the Falklands, etc. This is asside from it's other duties, such as at present off Beiruit.

I think my issue stems from there being no concept of the UK having ownership -- partly because the UK refers to two nations -- Great Britain and Northern Irleand, so I instinctively think of things being British (of Great Britain) or Irish (of Ireland, Northern or Southern)

As a side issue, Google seems to agree that the Royal Navy is the British one. (the 15th or so result being the "Royal Canadian Navy" - ok, so that's still the same monarch) Looking at other monarchs, the closest being "The Royal Norwegian Navy" Ratarsed 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We might be dealing with a cultural gap here, as I'm American and I'm not entirely clear on the relationship between the UK, its component nations, and its territories. However, the Royal Navy article says the Royal Navy is the navy of the United Kingdom, and the British Armed Forces article says they are the armed forces of the United Kingdom. Even though, say, the Falkland Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, they are a territory of the United Kingdom.
I absolutely agree with you that the British Royal Navy is the largest and most popular one. However, I still have the same issues with it: it's ethnocentric, less accessible when searching (especially when you don't know much about navies), and inconsistent. TomTheHand 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that ethnicity is the issue here; yes, I'm British (well, English), and yes, I live in the UK. But then again, the Royal Navy is still the navy of the Channel Islands (which themselves are not part of the UK, nor are they UK territories npor part of Great Britain). I guess the issue with the Royal Navy is a hangover from the days of the British Empire -- that and the Navy is much older than the United Kingdom itself (18th century vs. 1927). My concern here is that the Royal Navy is not attached to a single soveriegn state or country.
As an aside, what is the intention for dealing with vessels serving under the NATO banner?Ratarsed 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting question. I didn't realize that NATO has its own navy. Do you have an example of a vessel serving under the NATO banner, and not under the banner of a particular navy? TomTheHand 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's my point there -- Vessels of other navies will participate as NATO (NATO, do however have a few independant aircraft -- a fleet of AWACS craft, but that's a bigger aside, still) -- however, if I'm interested in the vessels that have served as part of a NATO operation, would I expect to see them listed by Navy?
Well, if I were to create a category for a particular NATO operation, I would probably not subdivide it by navy. For example, I could create a subcategory of Category:Kosovo War called Category:Ships of the Kosovo War but I would probably not subdivide that by nation. There would be a manageable number of ships and I'd feel it unnecessary to subdivide it further. If there were many hundreds of ships involved, and it would clean things up signficantly to subdivide by nation, I would do so. For a non-NATO example, Category:World War II destroyers is subdivided by nation.
However, what I'm trying to work out in this thread is how to categorize ships by country, rather than by an operation or era. I believe Category:Ships by era is already pretty solid, and it categorizes by country name, not by navy name. TomTheHand 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not been "going around" changing anything. I removed one instance of British prefixing "Royal Navy" because as people have already pointed out it is a tautology. Jooler 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I (TomTheHand) had the following discussion with Jooler on my talk page and wanted to move it here for further discussion:

There is nothing wrong with the current categorisation of Royal Navy ships. The Royal Navy covers ships for England, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other system would lead to anachronistic declarations. Jooler 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you prefer Royal Navy. Could you please tell me what you think about the issues I brought up, instead of saying "there is nothing wrong?" How do you think things should be categorized?
Some ideas:
  1. By the native name of the navy, like United States Navy, Royal Navy, and Regia Marina. And Kriegsmarine. And Koninklijke Marine. And Военно Морской Флот. And Πολεμικό Ναυτικό.
  2. By the native name of the navy, translated into English, like Hellenic Navy, Royal Danish Navy, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. And National Navy. And Military Maritime Fleet. And Military Navy.
  3. By the native name for navies you think are cool, like Royal Navy, and just (nationality) (navy) for other navies, like the French Navy, the Soviet Navy, and the Belgian Navy.
Got a plan I can apply that's actually good? Naming after the country avoids all of these problems. TomTheHand 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You can name them whatever you like I don't care. Jooler 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you name them after the equivalent page used for the Navy itself. No-one would be so daft as to consider moving Royal Navy to anything else. Jooler 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't address the above problems, or the other problems with categorization by navy: it makes things harder to find and causes big problems when a navy changes names, among other issues. I don't think we should have separate categories for all the different names Germany's navy has gone through. Do you? TomTheHand 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand is why it needs to homogenous? Royal Navy is universally understood to be the English/British Navy, that should suffice. Jooler 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree about being universally understood; while you and I know that "Royal Navy", written in English with no qualifier, is definitely the Royal Navy, I guarantee you that half of the people in my (American) office would be unsure at best. I think things could be even worse on a non-native English speaker. I believe the average person, with little knowledge of naval history, would benefit from being able to look things up by country instead of by navy.
I believe homogeneity is important in categorization because it greatly assists people who are actually trying to use the categories to look stuff up. Someone who's surfing categories needs to know whether they're looking at navies, countries, or what. It's difficult and unhelpful to see a mishmash of whatever everyone felt like throwing in. For example, I think Category:World War I battleships benefits from its homogeneity. Do you not use categories to look things up? It helps a lot of the categories are consistent in what they contain and how it's named. TomTheHand 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The ignorance of the masses has never been a good reason for anything other than education. Jooler 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)'
I couldn't agree more; that's why I'm here at Wikipedia, trying to make the best encyclopedia possible, and trying to make the information in it accessible to the ignorant masses. TomTheHand 11:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for naming categories in Ships by country

Could we list proposals for Ships by country below and discuss our support of them? Jooler had a very reasonable proposal for naming the categories: base it on the navy's article name. If you have a proposal, please list it.

  1. By country name, like Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom or Destroyers of Germany.
    Runs into problems when the country's name is not consistent, like when Great Britain and Northern Ireland formed the United Kingdom. Also runs into problems in civil wars, but it's easy enough to do a disambiguation: have Ironclads of the USN and Ironclads of the CSN subcats of the Ironclads of the US main cat. I support and prefer this proposal. TomTheHand 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. By navy name, like Royal Navy battlecruisers or Destroyers of the United States Navy. Choose navy name based on the navy's article, like Royal Navy, Hellenic Navy, or French Navy.
    Harder to find what you need if you don't know the navy's name. Raise your hand if you knew Greece's navy was called the Hellenic Navy. Extra credit for all of you! Also runs into problems when a navy changes names, like the many names of the German navy. I'm strongly opposed to having separate categories for all the different names of Germany's navy. That's what era cats are for. If we can come up with a solution to the problem of navy name changes, and consensus is to implement this proposal, I'm fine with it. TomTheHand 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Note, if consensus is to implement this, my suggestion for dealing with the many names of Germany's navy is to simply to call it German Navy. The only time I'd want to split is for 1949-1990 for the separate navies of West Germany and East Germany. I'd go for a similar solution in similar cases. TomTheHand 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    My vote would sit in this camp (and yes, I did know that Hellenic is an adjective for Greece) -- I'm sure a compromise could be reached that uses mulitple parent categories at some levels, if needs be (to cover navies attached to more than one country). Ratarsed 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer option 1 on grounds of accesability to the "masses". I also knew that "Hellenic" = Greek, but that doesn't affect my opinion. Of course, country names can also be an issue: those people who don't link "Royal Navy" with Britain might also confuse England, Great Britain and United Kingdom, for example, but any problems can be resolved in any case by redirects or disambigs. Folks at 137 09:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with the Ships by Country option. Leaving only one or two navies with their original names is violation of NPOV and increase of systemic bias; Using original names everywhere makes the categories useless. Both accessibility, neutrality and consistency are improved by the first option. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What about doing both in parallel? That way you could look up by "Canada" if you don't know that their navy was the Royal Canadian Navy until 1968, and the Canadian Forces Maritime Command after that. You could look up by "Germany" if you weren't sure which navy name to look up. It wouldn't require any renaming, and would make things easy to find both for naval history buffs and for the "ignorant masses." TomTheHand 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But how many categories would ship articles have? Ship by country, ship by navy, ship by era, ship by type, etc... aren't those too many. --Victor12 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that 5 or even 6 categories for a ship article would be too many. --Spot87 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any limit, what is the point in a limit for its own sake? Emoscopes Talk 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see how way too many categories could be confusing, but I think if each category adds value then it's alright. I don't know, I could see either side... does listing both the country and the navy add sufficient value? I think it clears up this dispute and solves certain real problems with using just one or the other. I would still prefer to just do country, but if we don't do both we might wind up doing neither and having things remain a mess. TomTheHand 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"does listing both the country and the navy add sufficient value?" - in short, yes, as countries have often had more than one navy, e.g. during times of civil war (i.e the Union Navy and the Confederate Navy) and on the flipside one Navy has its roots in more than one country (i.e the (British) Royal Navy descends from the English Navy and has also been the navy of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Hard and fast rules would surely only cause problems where pedantry such as these examples is concerned. Emoscopes Talk 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to give an example of a possible problem with this approach, look at USS Thomas (DD-182). She served with four navies and so already carries a large number of categories. Would it be alright to add an additional one for each country? TomTheHand 12:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Her large number of categories is fine by me. If you're widely traveled, you're going to have a long record. Lou Sander 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to divide the article? That would clear things up, you would have a USS Thomas page, HMS St Albans, KNM St Albans and Dostoinyi. There seems to be enough material at least for the first three of this series. --Victor12 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's an excellent point, and probably a good solution to this particular problem. Some ships that have passed through many hands won't have articles long enough to divide, but they'll probably be the exception rather than the rule. I can accept a small number of articles with many cats. TomTheHand 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Alright, each side seems to have significant support and significant opposition. I seriously don't see us reaching a single solution. Above, I suggested that we do both, and each ship should have a navy cat and a country cat. That proposal seems to have some support from both sides. Does it have enough to become our plan? Please post your support or opposition to implementing both at the same time.

Also, if we do decide we should do both, we should come up with a consistent plan for naming navy categories. Native names are probably silly, even if they're transliterated. Translated native names are probably a bad plan as well, because many countries simply call their navy the "Royal Navy" or "National Navy." Jooler suggested naming categories after the article, which I think is alright. CP/M's point about neutrality is well taken, but I think using the article names is as neutral as we can come while still remaining useful, and if there's a neutrality issue about having the article about the Marine Nationale located at French Navy then the issue can be resolved there and the solution can propagate down to the categories.

As a minor side issue, we should also name the navy categories consistently, either in the "Royal Navy destroyers" format or the "Destroyers of the Royal Navy" format. There seems to be consistency within nations but not across nations. I realize most people probably don't have a strong preference, but it's going to be necessary to perform category renames, which is going to require votes. If you're apathetic, it would be appreciated if you'd vote for whatever consensus is; if you're violently opposed to one format or the other, please speak now instead of after the renames are proposed. TomTheHand 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. This will also solve problems of fleets changing names, like German. Another possible way for fleet category naming could be (Country)(Navy name).CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is preferable, and probably will be easier to reach a compromise, if we aim for consistency within navies rather than between them. I also would like to see an agreement made re. whether it should be (e.g.) "Royal Navy destroyers" or "Destroyers of the Royal Navy". In this latter case at least we should be able to agree a uniform format for all navies. Emoscopes Talk 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true; consistency within navies would be a good first goal. For example, Category:United States Navy aircraft carriers is inconsistent with the other USN cats, which are named like Category:Battleships of the United States Navy. Perhaps I should try for consistency within navies before trying to propose consistency between them. TomTheHand 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm currently adding and improving a lot of articles about Royal Navy destroyers, but find that there is a well established category "Royal Navy destroyers" with sub-categories "World War I destroyers of the United Kingdom", "Cold War Destroyers of the United Kingdom" etc. So not only is there no consistency in what the navy is rendered as, there is none as to which way round it goes - most confusing! Emoscopes Talk 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We had some discussion above as to what the various categories should actually contain, and my plan is to make these categories like Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom (which was my test category for this whole proposal). I think it's useful for the categories to contain eras, class categories, and articles. TomTheHand 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Part of the issue is due to the fact that some categories are not clearly mutually exclusive (see Category confusion above). As an example, look at the category hierarchy for World War II destroyers, battleships, and aircraft carriers of both the UK and USA:
Ships
Naval ships
So while UK and US destroyers are in the Ships category, battleships are in the Naval ships category, and aircraft carriers are split between the two. When you add in other classes of ships (destroyers, mine sweepers, etc.) and other WWII combatants (France, Germany, Japan, etc.), it turns into a nearly incomprehensible mishmash. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What a mess. I would propose the following revision to the top portion:
Ships
I think all warships should be found under "naval ships" and we should regard warships sorted under regular "ships" as a mistake to be fixed. TomTheHand 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favour of a standard, almost any standard, rather than a mess. But the standard should be adaptable. On balance, I prefer the hierarchy: nation/ historical period /ship type/ class (ie United States WWII battleships (New Jersey class); but I won't cry myself to sleep if something else is the consensus. Another issue may be where there is dispute or change in the type of a ship, eg, the looong debate over how to describe the Scharnhorst class (or is it Gneisenau?) or whether the Scheers are "pocket battleships" or "heavy cruisers". Maybe we merely allow for all routes to an article. BTW: big thanks to Tom for his efforts and willingness to stick his neck out - brave man! Folks at 137 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a few thoughts. First, while I do like the hierarchy you've mentioned, I also like having ships be available at different points in the hierarchy. I'll point to my prototype Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom again. I think it's good to have all battlecruisers of the UK available in one place, but also good to be able to drill down the hierarchy and see only WWI or WWII battlecruisers. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to make ships available further up in the hierarchy; a single cat with all destroyers ever built by anyone would be unhelpful.
In some disputes, like with the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau class, I've listed the ships as both, as in Category:Gneisenau class battlecruisers. They're findable under battleships or battlecruisers. As far as the Deutschlands go, I refuse to create a category called "pocket battleships," and I refuse to categorize them as "battleships," so they're found under cruisers. TomTheHand 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Re. Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom, this creates a problem similar to the "pocket battleship" one, in that the Furious and Glorious classes are usually referred to as "large light cruisers", they really don't merit being battlecruisers, weren't designed as such and never served as such. Emoscopes Talk 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I see what you're saying, but I think it's more of a Gneisenau problem than a Deutschland one. I'd be happy to list them as cruisers as well, but many people do refer to them as battlecruisers. Nobody who knows anything about ships calls the Deutschland-class "battleships;" there's always the "pocket" qualifier and nobody really tries to equate them to a real battleship. On the other hand, the Furious, Courageous, and Glorious were every bit as large as a battlecruiser and shared battlecruiser traits. TomTheHand 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Those of you who are savvy with the subject will use the (currently) correct descriptions - and it will work fine. Let's consider those who are still discovering - I think we have to allow for a "fuzziness" for definitions as well as guidance to the "correct" ones. A 12 year old boy, for example, who's researching German battleships for fun may desire info about warships that are correctly categorised elsewhere, as above. Enabling him to recognise the differences is a part of the education. Maybe under "battleships" (a common term), we include a pointer to these other ships either individually or as a category. Folks at 137 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for accessability, but not for it to be accessably incorrect! It's hard to draw the line between being technically correct and not to split hairs so much that it makes the hierachies unnaccessably obscure to the lay person. My feeling would be to to include the Courageouses and Gniesenaus of the world in with battlecruisers, but makes sure that at the top of the relevant article there is a short note giving the technically correct classification. Another nitpick would be that of the Hawkins class cruiser, they are usually lumped in with heavy cruisers, but actually were designed and built before that particular term came into vogue after the Washington Treaty of 1921. I wouldn't have any problems putting them in a heavy cruiser category, but I wouldn't refer to them as such in the article. Emoscopes Talk 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for accessibility at the expense of correctness; I actually think that there is a very reasonable case for calling the Gneisenaus "battleships" and the Courageouses "battlecruisers." There are perfectly intelligent and well-educated people with knowledge of naval history on both sides. I don't believe there's any need for us to take sides in the debate; unlike debates over the article titles, we can easily list the ships under both categories. TomTheHand 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A ship category disjucture earlier today generated this following linked query, and the presence now of effective interwiki linking as can be seen in those cited links: Problem of 3 BB Categories So while I'm not going to weigh in directly on such a heartfelt discussion, but would like to point out that what you do should take into account the international effects (and what you affect) with respect to the commons and via the commons all the various language sister projects which are in the process of being tied more much closely using interwiki cross-category links. (Finding those neat pictures will eventually get much easier, and extra help is always needed, perhaps especially on the commons!)

Then again, I should point out that certain commonly used search tools on the commons default to a mere three categories of depth in searching for an intersection of two criteria specified as category names... so minimizing tree depth is a really good thing idea. Also note, on the commons, an image of a particular battlecruiser is most likely to not only be categorized under it's specific daughter category, but also in the higher tree categories as well. Interlinking and being able to find things easily is more important than nitpicks about absolutely correct minimal categorization.

I believe it would be helpful for you all to know some of the other tools that have come out of the effort which began in categories containing maps. Take a peek at {{w2}}, {{w2c}}, {{Cat see also}}, {{Category redirect2}} for example, and {{Commonscat4}} and template:WikiPcat for a usage glimpse of the interwiki templates (All are listed in Category:Wikipedia navigation templates, which is a horrible name, but suits until we finalize all the names in the system, including templates. See: User Talk:Fabartus and especially here for ongoing discussions towards making the interwiki linking a meta-project.)

If some of you were to add the relevant interwiki templates when you rework these categories, it would be much appreciated. More to the point, I'd suggest tying your learned discussion to take into account the commons heirarchy now, while making your decisions. These interwiki's can aid you in getting a picture of both trees. Note it is far easier to 'delete' a commons category than the Cfd procedure here on en.wp, so you all might take some time to tag and get a feel for the lay of the land while resolving the top-down heirarchy you are discussing herein. When in doubt as to whether 'things are equalized', use a '1' suffixed template, which tags with a slightly different category signifying more work is needed to vett the new structure until it can be said to be 'equalized'.

(We're currently working on cutting the list of templates down by adding if-then-else 'smarts' to do more, and there are enough trial variations and usage built in to give guidance some guidance in advance of a formal guideline. See both sister's Category:F class submarines and both their two parents for few optional Main Article wrinkles using brief calls
     Like: {{WikiPcat1|{{PAGENAME}}|F class submarine}}
     and... {{Commonscat1Ra|F class submarine}} (Note the offset order of the Main article link... the templates default to a main article name matching the category name, and we'll probably adjust that sort of thing to be consistant.)

Gotta run. Good luck to all. // FrankB 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to begin implementing the compromise proposal, adding both a country tag and a navy tag, starting tomorrow unless someone objects here before then. When I have to create country categories, I will name them in the (ship type) of (country) format, like "Destroyers of Germany". When I have to create navy categories, I will name them based on the name of our article for the navy. I will name them in the (ship type) of (navy) format, like "Destroyers of the Kriegsmarine", because I feel it reads best and fits well with the existing categories like (era name) (ship type) of (country). If anyone has any objections, please post here and I won't do anything until we reach a consensus. Again, if nobody has any objections, I will begin tomorrow. TomTheHand 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it two days, and there were no objections, so I'm going to start with this. TomTheHand 14:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on the compromise, and would like to thank you for your patience and persistence in this matter! Good work! Emoscopes Talk 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Emoscopes. If anyone has any objections in the future, please let me know either here or on my talk and I'll stop so we can further discuss the issue. TomTheHand 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Hyphen in formatting

There is a serious lack of consistancy throughout the site on the use of hyphen when it comes to ship classes. I'm seeing, for example, "Cleveland-class" as well as "Cleveland class"...both with and without the hyphen. Has there been a policy set which provides the proper format? It would be nice to introduce some level of normalcy in this situation (both for real world vessels as well as fictional and sci-fi ships). -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I surfed around navy.mil a little bit and not even they do it consistently! Consistency would be nice but I wouldn't know which way to go. Our ship class articles (see Category:Ship classes and its subcategories) are consistently named without a hyphen. However, our ship class templates (like Template:Nimitz class aircraft carrier) are consistently named without hyphens but consistently use hyphens in the template box itself. I don't have a particular preference. I guess whichever way would require less work would be the way to go. TomTheHand 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships);
Uses of the class as a noun are not hyphenated, while adjectival references are hyphenated, as in Ohio-class submarine: if in doubt, do not hyphenate. Note the separation of submarine as a separate link; this is not required, but does allow the reader to look up the general term directly instead of being plunged into the technical discussion of a ship class.
hope that helps. Emoscopes Talk 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks all, great info. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest using a pipetrick exclamation point to indicate a redirect link, which should be categorized equivilent to the actual article. If such notation is used, when and where something is inconsistant shows up like a bandaged sore thumb while wearing a black tux. It would be an easy matter then to reconcile things with the naming convention just cited. You can't stop people from creating the links... only control same. // FrankB 16:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed the hyphen issue a lot on Wikipedia, it is not just the navy that is confused. Mercedes uses a hyphen (S-Class) officially but BMW does not (3 Series). People get confused because they think of 'spelling rules' rather than 'purpose'. Hyphens are tools to resolve ambiguity (compare "black-cab drivers come under attack" with "black cab-drivers come under attack").
Quotes from styleguides in User_talk:Bobblewik/style#Hyphens_and_dashes:

  • Do not use a hyphen unless it serves a purpose
  • be sparing with hyphens
  • If you take the hyphen seriously, you will surely go mad.
  • Winston Churchill apparently said: One must regard the hyphen as a blemish to be avoided as far as possible

Ship class names should not have a hyphen unless they are part of ambiguous text. bobblewik 10:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording of stub template

This is a question I have also left on Template talk:UK-mil-ship-stub, with regards to the phrasing of the UK-mil-ship-stub template. Currently, it reads "military ship", my feeling is that it should read "naval ship"; military being "Of or relating to land forces." I know the Army run a few vessels, but as this stub is used almost exclusively with regards to naval vessels, I feel that this is somewhat incorrect. Emoscopes Talk 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

sorted now Emoscopes Talk 10:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pennant Numbers in the RN

I was wondering what the protocol is on Pennant numbers on Wikipedia, if any. The pennant number article uses the simplest version, with no full stop/period between the Flag Superior and the Number. This seems to be the convention on many websites and in print, as well as being what appeared on the hulls of the warships themselves. By contrast, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which cite the pennant number with the afore mentioned full stop/period.

If there isn't already an official convention on the matter, I propose that one be put in place.

-Harlsbottom 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just recently expanded and updated the pennant number article and I have discussed this there. I would strongly be in favour of a convention for wikipedia not to use the period. They haven't been painted on since the 1920s, Royal Navy official publications and the vast majority of books do not use them. Emoscopes Talk 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly agree with your assessment. I'm in touch with a number of authors on the matter, and that's how they've done it as well. How does one go about making the change official?

-Harlsbottom 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I presume by getting it added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Emoscopes Talk 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you're obviously on the ball with this, can you edit the infobox on the british battleships of WWII so that the Pennant Number can be included? I've tried numerous times, but it never works. I have a list of numbers from Queen Elizabeth onwards. -Harlsbottom 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done this on the Vanguard article previously, the edit concerned is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Vanguard_%2823%29&diff=65123367&oldid=65122989
You basically want to add these three lines somewhere appropriate;
|-
|Pennant:
|number here
Emoscopes Talk 11:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilian liner question: SS versus RMS?

I am in the midst of a project to document all the White Star Line ships, and have found an area of inconsistency that I'd like to overcome, and I would like to solicit interested folks' opinions. Article names for British liners are sometimes preceded with an "RMS" rather than an "SS". According to the article Royal Mail Ship as well as other non-wiki info I can find, RMS is really only a temporary designation for when mail is actually being carried onboard (kind of like Air Force One is really only that when the President is onboard). Any other time, the ship should properly be referred to as "SS". It seems that RMS usage has taken on the "popular" conception that it is a standard reference to a British ship (a misconception, no doubt, aided by the infamy of the RMS Titanic, since she was under that designation when she went down). Though it seems that the preference at Wikipedia is to use the title which would be most "commonly" used by the public (a problem that is easily overcome by redirect pages), I am concerned as a historian that by doing so we are giving false legitimacy to a misconception. Thus, except for special situations like Titanic, I propose that "SS" be used as the standard Wikipedia format, and I'd like to see if there's a consensus amongst the project folks. Concur? Disconcur? Akradecki 03:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, a toughie. Even if the designation was temporary, if it's the best-known, I'd say it's still legit to use. Not unlike what we do with ships that have had several name changes; any of the names are technically correct, even if the ship carried it for only a day, so we just pick the most familiar from among them. So for instance if the ship was an "RMS" throughout 90% of its heyday, then "RMS" seems like it would be far more common than "SS". You could clarify in each article by saying "launched as SS Foo", and mention date of first mail carriage. If mail usage was occasional, then "SS" would be more common and thus preferred. Anyway, does anybody really want to push "SS Titanic" as the preferred title? :-) Stan 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stan; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states that the article should be given the most common name that is still unambiguous, so if a ship was primarily known with the prefix RMS its article should be titled as such (with a redirect from SS if it doesn't cause a conflict with another ship) TomTheHand 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Olympias (trireme)

Someone please cleanup this article, especially the infobox.

It is financed by Hellenic Navy (Greece) so the navy infobox apply. However, since it is a trireme, it has no powerplant and armour to speak of. SYSS Mouse 03:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

hard code a infobox for this particular example? GraemeLeggett 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dashes in specifying caliber of gun?

In a phrase like "8 inch gun", is it preferable to have a dash or a space between 8 and inch? I favor spaces and I think standardization is a good idea but I wanted to discuss it here. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states that with units of measurement, a space should be used (preferably non-breaking). Should that be applied to our gun calibers as well? TomTheHand 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The units master, User:Bobblewik replaces spaces with a hard coded one Emoscopes Talk 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he doesn't; he prefers regular spaces, but maintains a non-breaking space version of his code for people like me (he apparently gets lots of requests, because the MoS specifies non-breaking spaces, but I think he thinks they're silly). TomTheHand 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"She", "Her" (referring to ships as feminine)

Has there been a consensus on using feminine pronouns in the articles to refer to the ship? I reverted an "it"ification of the USS Arizona (BB-39) article last night. I listed the rv as for no consensus cited. Also the anonymous editor changed broke to raised for an admirals flag, which strikes me as just dumbing down.

Some reasons to keep the feminine:

  • Thousands? of years of nautical tradition
  • Wikipedia language variant guidelines: "nautical" is a dialect of English and its usages should not be arbitrarily changed to some other dialect of English.
  • Frequently, passages are direct quotes from DANFS.

The opposing view seems to be centered on that any use of the feminine pronoun is somehow harmful. Maybe I'm ingorant of some specific and uniformly opressive connotation of calling a ship a she. But like the word "ignorant" I'm not willing to give it up because it can be used in a derogatory manner. Everything can be used in a derogatory fashion.

Observations of women who've "gone down to the sea in ships" would be particulary welcome. I'll be pinging a few I know including a CPO and an M.D.--J Clear 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Since "she" is completely common in U.S. Navy, in this case it's definitely the appropriate pronoun. In my opinion, use of "it" is normal or possible in articles about ship classes, or about foreign ships, or when just referring to a ship in a more generic article. However, in no case for individual American ships. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I tend to use "she/her" and see no harm in this (what precisely would the objection be?). It strikes me that this argument is strikingly similiar to the "the" discussion we had some time ago. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive01#.22The.22_before_the_ship.27s_name We've discussed this very topic before as well Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive02#Calling_ships_she with no consensus.
Sorry I missed the archive. Darned archiving. What? Don't people like 600 line talk pages? Has a FAQ been started on the project page?--J Clear 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we adopt a guideline similar to what we did with the "the". "The" is not needed before the name of a ship (but neither is it wrong) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Referring_to_ships. Jinian 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"The" is never wrong for "The Name", but if you have a prefix it can cause problems - "The USS Name" is fine, but "The HMS Name" doesn't make sense. Shimgray | talk | 21:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another point in favor, from the American Heritage Dictionary: "2. Used in place of it to refer to certain inanimate things, such as ships and nations, traditionally perceived as female: “The sea is mother-death and she is a mighty female” (Anne Sexton)."--J Clear 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have an authority to cite *against* feminine pronouns? The complainers seem to be amateurs looking for sexism in every phrase, not actual real-life feminists. (Seems stylish to still use masculine pronouns for Russian though - WP doesn't *have* to be the blandest text ever written...) Stan 05:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency. Formally, in normal English, as well as in probably all other languages, ships are inanimate and inanimate objects are "it". Feminine is a long tradition in navies, but, after all, we don't insert all of the naval jargon in articles, so "it" is correct as well. However, when the article is related to a certain country, it's recommended to use corresponding dialect, so I think we could establish the following:

  • In articles about a specific US or UK ship, feminine is preferable.
  • In articles about US or UK ship classes, both feminine and neuter are acceptable.
  • In general engineering or other topics and in articles about ships and classes outside of US and UK, neuter is preferable.
  • Feminine should only be used for specific ships, not ship classes.

Any thoughts or objections? This generally reflects the current use both in Wikipedia and in other sources. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't legislate everything: some things ought to be left to the taste and discretion of editors. Gdr 15:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to it, and I'm female. It's naval tradition in the US. I think when I've been writing though I use "it" but it's because I don't come from a naval tradition and didn't think about it, just seemed natural to me at the time. I can change to using "she" plange 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:United States class aircraft carriers

WP:CFD on United Staes class aircraft carrier category Category:United States class aircraft carriers, that contains the sole example, USS United States (CVA-58).

USS US had just her keel laid, and the fzip, scrapped, no other planned ship made it to a keel, or material collection, nothing else was named... as far as I can tell. Why does this need a category? There will never be another article about a US class carrier.

70.51.8.235 05:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An article on the class itself would be appropriate, and moving the article to Category:Unique aircraft carriers wouldn't be appropriate because she was not unique. She was a member of a five-ship class, all of which were cancelled. If one were built and the rest were cancelled, I'd feel a little differently. TomTheHand 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the difference between a totally cancelled class and a class that made it to one example, and then was cancelled. There would either be one ship article, with the class folded into it, or a class article, with any underconstruction ships folded into it. 132.205.93.19 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of the sole ship of a class, where the rest of the class was cancelled, that ship is unique and belongs in Category:Unique ships or a subcat. If an entire class is cancelled, it doesn't go in Unique ships; the class and/or ships are not unique.
See Category:Montana class battleships or Category:South Dakota class battleships (1920) for examples of classes which were cancelled but which still have multiple articles. TomTheHand 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I see, all those articles should be folded into the class article. Your point about it not being a "unique example" would just indicate that this should be categorized in say Category:Proposed ship classes that were never built. 132.205.93.19 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, but that structure doesn't exist yet; it'd probably be a good thing to create in the future. TomTheHand 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

hazegray and navsource AWOL?

hazegray.org and navsource.org seem to have gone AWOL. No DNS resolution. Near as I can tell I can't reach their DNS name servers (same name servers for both). Nor can I reach them by IP (from another ISPs cache). Anybody know what's going on?--J Clear 01:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, they're back, like magic. I'd still like to know what happened. I couldn't get through last night either.--J Clear 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been having intermittent problems with NavSource yesterday and today, most recently within the past hour. Don't know about HazeGray. Lou Sander 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to:

HMS Enterprize (1709) and HMS Enterprize (1743)? Can someone tell me when and why they were deleted or moved, without redirecting them? Pedant 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, the first article apparently had a prod tag added to it and nobody noticed or objected in the required time period. It was deleted last May. If you'd like, you could try posting on Wikipedia:Deletion review and ask to have it restored. The second article doesn't have a history in the deletion log, so I've got no idea what happened to it. TomTheHand 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The first one was deleted as a copyvio of [1]; feel free to use that as a source for a new one. Doesn't seem to ever have been a page at the second one. Shimgray | talk | 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom

Just a quick heads up that I have proposed a merger of the lists List of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy. Emoscopes Talk 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming navy categories

In the discussion above, Further discussion on categorization of Category:Ships by country, we worked out a compromise where ships would be categorized both by country and by navy. I said that I would begin classifying articles I touch in the future in that way, and I'd be naming new categories in the format (ship type) of (navy) (like Category:Battleships of the United States Navy). This seems to be most consistent with the way Ships by country and Ships by era are named, and it also seems to be consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), though the naming conventions only address ships by country, not ships by navy.

However, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the whole thing, and I'm wondering if these categories should be named in the (navy) (ship type) format instead (like Category:Royal Navy battleships). Many categories are already named that way, it's compact, and it looks good. Either way, a ton of renaming will need to occur. What do you guys think? I think I've presented both sides and I'm having real difficulty choosing between the two. We'll need a real consensus on this one, because we'll have to propose renames on WP:CFD. TomTheHand 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see the usefulness of both ways. One might be interested in just battleships, or just Royal Navy ships. So this would not lead to a strong argument for boldy defying wiki Naming conventions policy (and it is a policy, not a guide). Assuming both cannot be supported, it would seem like the "Miscellaneous ... of country" policy rule would apply, with a Navy being a representative of a country. So Category: Fooships of Bar Navy. My USD0.02, YMMV.--J Clear 00:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Underlying rationales for using "of" include that adjectival forms of country names are often ambiguous with ethnicities (Swedish community in Finland for instance), or are ambiguous in other ways ("American", "British"). Since "navyname shiptype" is grammatically acceptable, no adjective needed, that isn't a motivation. On following naming conventions, the policy for ships is generally accepted to originate from here, this project having been around for a long time and having a good reputation. So if we agree here on something that is a little different from the usual, and have reasonable rationales for it, that will become the policy. In this case, I have a slight preference for "navyname shiptype", both for brevity's sake, and as a visual distinction from "shiptype of countryname". Stan 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
One point to consider would be that formal names for a country's navy are a relatively recent inventions; older warships would still need to be listed by country name. Another point is that names often overlap (how many countries have a "Royal Navy"?), so you'd be forced into either using non-English terms exclusively, or falling back to country adjectives. Kirill Lokshin 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
We had discussed this a bit above (see here) and decided that (as a compromise) ships should be categorized by both country name and navy name. As a result, we have both Category:Cruisers of the United Kingdom and Category:Royal Navy cruisers. On the matter of name overlap and other related issues, we decided to name categories after the applicable article on the navy, so Royal Thai Navy, Royal Netherlands Navy, etc. Also as a result of that guideline, we'll use Russian Navy instead of Военно Морской Флот, and so on.
Do you have an opinion on the (ship type) of (navy) vs. (navy) (ship type) issue? TomTheHand 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the (ship type) of (navy) version is a bit easier to understand, as all that you need to do to create a properly named sub-category is to substitute the navy name for the country name, and a parallel naming convention is maintained through both trees (i.e. "Ships of the Royal Navy" → "Cruisers of the Royal Navy" and "Cruisers of the United Kingdom" → "Cruisers of the Royal Navy"); but I don't do much work with ships, so there might be subtleties I'm missing here. Kirill Lokshin 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like (ship type) of (navy). Lou Sander 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a not-exactly-parallel naming conventions would be better to distinguish between by country/by navy categorization. Also, something like "Foo Navy Bars" sounds simpler. Navy's ships are a bit different from coutry's, because ships are what constitutes a navy, not just its property. So I think the simpler way is better for this situation, like "Ship elements", at least for categories. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for responding! I hope more people come by and weigh in. At the moment, J Clear, Kirill Lokshin, and Lou Sander seem to favor (ship type) of (navy), while CP/M and Stan favor (navy) (ship type). This kind of division is rough, because it'll be difficult to get any renames through at CFD. Perhaps a clear consensus will emerge in coming hours/days.

I value consistency of naming far more than any other concern, and so I would vote for any blanket rename that establishes consistency. Consistency doesn't just improve readability. It also allows greater use of templates to categorize, which makes category maintenance much, much easier. Does anyone else feel the same way? Alternatively, is anyone vehemently opposed to either naming scheme? TomTheHand 18:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I probably favor (navy)(shiptype) slightly, my comments above were how I thought wiki policy might apply. I'm definitely in favor of consistancy. As to by country/by navy, I think you have to go by "navy", unless you want to lump USN, USCG, MARAD, NOAA, EPA, USA[rmy] and even USAF ships together.--J Clear 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you about having to go by navy, for several reasons. First, ships from the various branches of service would very rarely be lumped together. The Coast Guard never had a battleship, for example. Second, for many searchers, it would be helpful to be able to search for ships of the United States without having to know which branch the ship served in. Third, categorization by navy is very confusing for people who don't know the name of the navy. For the United States Navy, it's easy. For the Royal Navy, it's a little harder; you and I know that the Royal Navy is the navy of the United Kingdom, but not everybody does. For the Hellenic Navy or the Regia Marina, it's even harder. Fourth, there are cases when you may prefer to have the ships lumped together. Germany's navy went through five names in the twentieth century, and it is useful to be able to see all cruisers of Germany at a glance.
For all these reasons, I think categorizing by country is the better solution, but I see categorizing by both as a good compromise. TomTheHand 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to give this discussion another little prod. Can we come up with a compromise? Would people be willing to vote for either side as long as consistency is achieved, or are some people horrified by one arrangement or the other? TomTheHand 17:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll vote for either variant, if that is our consensus. While I have a preference for shorter way, consistency (single cat) is more important than details. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I realise I am late to the party :) If one more voicr would help here it is. If positions are entrenched maybe a vote is in order. My view is that we should list by country to get a consistent solution that will fit more situations. Inge 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your view is appreciated, and you're by no means late to the party. However, we're already categorizing both by country and by navy because it seems clear that there is no way to achieve consensus to do just one. What we're discussing is how to name the navy categories: (ship type) of (navy), like Category:Battleships of the United States Navy, or (navy) (ship type), like Category:Royal Navy battleships. Do you have an opinion on that issue? TomTheHand 20:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
For many of the reasons listed above and for reasons of simplicity and user friendliness, I would have to go with (ship type) of (navy). Isn't categorising by both too much of a comprimise and just adds more work? --Harlsbottom 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, too much work, for an issue where everybody expressing an opinion seems to be OK with it whichever way it goes. The "of" choice has more votes, might as well go with it. It occurs to me that there is an additional complication in that commons uses a similar category structure that is interwiki'ed here, so changes want to occur in both places. Stan 12:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a concensus and I'll vote for it, it's currently a mess and I'd rather have an agreed format that I may have a minor nitpick with than see 3 or 4 half-baked systems running at once as is the case now. After a lot of though, I'm in favour of the (ship type) of (country name), basically because I have realised that, especially with auxiluaries and support vessels, these ships aren't always operated by the Navy. For instance, I can't really put quite a few operational British vessels into the category "Support Ships of the Royal Navy" as they are Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. The (country) format is a catchall for all naval services of that nation, and I see no reason why we should discriminate between a ship such as a destroyer which may only be operated by i.e the Royal Navy and a vessel such as an LSL, which may be RFA, RASC or RN! As far as I can see it, the country system is the best "1 size fits all" option Emoscopes Talk 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I take it that you mean there would be categories such as "Battleships of the United States," and "Battleships of Japan," and "Battleships of the United Kingdom," etc. Also perhaps "Transport ships of the United States," etc., whether those ships were operated by the U.S. Navy, the Military Sealift Command, the United States Postal Service, or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency of the United States of America. As long as we could avoid complexities such as "Landing Ships, Tank, Diesel Powered of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," I would be in favor of that scheme. Lou Sander 14:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm for, Lou. Emoscopes Talk 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This is also the format used for naming of flags i.e naval ensigns, e.g it is "Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom", not "Royal Navy Ensign" or any other format. Another reason to follow this form? Emoscopes Talk 12:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry, I've been out of town the whole weekend. Glad to see all the discussion. I originally started this thread to talk about the naming format of navy categories, but it's turned into a discussion of whether we should categorize by country or navy in general. I'll weigh in on that issue.
I feel very strongly that we must categorize by country, though I am not opposed to listing by navy in addition. I've listed my reasoning above; I'll repeat it on request but leave it out right now for brevity.
A month or two ago, I tried to drum up consensus for renaming navy categories and merging them into country categories. It looked like there was consensus here, but when I proposed merges and renames on WP:CFD they were shot down hard. There is significant opposition to the merging of navy categories into country categories, especially from Royal Navy fans. The compromise that we worked out was to list both, which does have some use: it's silly for the US / USN, but useful for Germany, with its many navy names.
I will not propose a new round of renames on CFD, and I will continue to categorize ships by both country and navy according to the previous consensus on the subject. However, if someone else proposes them, I will vote in support of eliminating (renaming/merging/deleting) navy cats in favor of country cats. I will oppose attempts to eliminate country cats in favor of navy cats. If someone does propose the renames, please post links to the CFD on this page.
If a new consensus emerges for the elimination of navy categories and merging with country categories, I will obviously stop categorizing by navy, and I'll be happier for it. TomTheHand 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to kill this discussion! Is anyone planning to propose some merges? I'd support a measure to merge navy categories into country categories, as Emoscopes suggests above. I don't want to propose the merges myself, because I tried it a few months ago and failed and I think some people got upset with me. I'm not confident that any proposed merges would succeed now, but if anyone believes that it could be pulled off, I encourage you to go for it. TomTheHand 19:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you, TomTheHand, quite frankly, most of the categories for the Royal Navy are a complete and utter mess. We really need some guidelines of what goes into what category where before we go to the all the effort of attempting a recategorisation though. Emoscopes Talk 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact I've been working on a complete proposal for ship categorization. I'm going to post a new topic below so that people not following this thread can see it. Please check it out. TomTheHand 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

AKA's probably in the wrong class

There's a discussion of this subject HERE. I'd appreciate anybody's review and comment. Lou Sander 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Shipbuilders

I've been building a database of ships lately, and when tabulating shipbuilders with the aid of Wikipedia I've come across "irregularities" which don't help accuracy;

For example, for a vessel built at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation in Quincy, MA, I have seen "Fore River Ship Building Corporation" or "Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Squantum, MA". For a vessel built in 1919 "Fore River..." wouldn't apply due to the yard having been sold under that name in 1913, and the difference between Squantum and Quincy is no doubt a matter of opinion.

I'm not so sure about your examples. Squantum is not on the Fore River, but a few miles north, along the Neponset R. Possibly different shipyards, that were later consolidated.--J Clear 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm asking is whether it is worth drawing up a list of shipbuilders specifying what names were used at a time a vessel was built, with redirect links to most recent name. I'd like to see not necessarily a greater consistency (as in some cases names changed often) but I believe that there will be a large number of shipbuilders which could be made more consistent. Comment welcome. --Harlsbottom 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it WOULD be beneficial to have a list of shipbuilders, along with the different names they've been known by. There really aren't very many of them in the world, and they DO change names and ownership pretty frequently. I think that specialist companies probably have pretty complete lists, but those lists and companies sometimes aren't easy to find.
I could have used such a list when I posted or edited articles about the 117 Amphibious cargo ships of the United States, which were built in 12 different yards over a period of forty years or so. Six yards built 102 of the ships, but the yard names were inconsistently styled in the source material. I finally figured out that all those names really only referred to six different shipyards, so I was able to be consistent in writing the articles. Seven different yards built the other 15 ships, but due to the small number at each yard I'm still not quite certain of their real names and locations. Lou Sander 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've come across this exact problem for British naval ships, that is the constant changing of yard names, mergers etc. I always try to correct the yard to the name at the time the ship was built, although there isn't always a separate page so I often end up directing the wikilink to the most appropriate page. Emoscopes Talk 07:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

British shipyards, while not as serious as some of the American ones, are just as infuriating sometimes. The case of Armstrong, Whitworth & Company. Also known as Elswick, also known as Vickers Armstrong, also known as Walker Shipyard or even the Walker Navy Yard. Unbelievable at times.
If someone has a good idea for a title please come forth, because I can't think of one at all. Something similar to Guide to the various names of shipbuilders, perhaps? --Harlsbottom 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to contribute a British section to such a page, I've made determined efforts to get the correct names and locations and put them into articles. I usually put the full name and location in e.g Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Govan for the first ship in a list buitl at that yard, with following examples under a contracted form, e.g. just "Fairfields". I favour the form "Full company name", "yard location" in the first instance, followed by an unlinked contraction in subsequent use in the same article. This helps for examples like the case of Vickers Armstrong. There was a Barrow-in-Furness and a High Walker yard (ex- Vickers and Armstrong Whitworth, respectively) and I usually refer to these as Vickers Armstrong, Barrow-in-Furness and Vickers Armstrong, High Walker respectively. (note that High Walker is piped from Walker-on-Tyne.)

Emoscopes Talk 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a little page here just to test a layout and to collate some ideas. I intend to go name by name (discounting unnecessary variants). Any contributions/modifications in the interim are highly desirable. BTW, I do agree with the manner in which you mention the name of the builder, Emoscopes. --Harlsbottom 14:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, for a vessel built at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation in Quincy, MA, I have seen "Fore River Ship Building Corporation" or "Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Squantum, MA". For a vessel built in 1919 "Fore River..." wouldn't apply due to the yard having been sold under that name in 1913, and the difference between Squantum and Quincy is no doubt a matter of opinion.

Actually, the Fore River shipyard and the Squantum shipyard were different facilities in Quincy, though both were owned by Bethlehem.[2] The Squantum "Victory Yard" was only in existence from 1917 to 1919, building 35 destroyers. —wwoods 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll be sure to include it (it also means that I have a load of entries to edit on the Wickes & Clemson class DDs now! --Harlsbottom 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please include German shipyards: there's info [here]. Also please add the marine warfare task force tag. Good hunting! The proposed layout looks a good first cut - perhaps add any specialisms and links to specific articles. Folks at 137 11:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know the owner of GWPDA.org - I must confess I didn't realsie he had a list of German shipyards on there. I'll be sure to accomodate them. --Harlsbottom 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
About 19 U.S. shipyards built Liberty ships during WWII. Some of the yards operated only for a few years. One can find a meaningful amount of info on each one at www.liberty-ship.com. You must select "The Yards" from the box at the upper left of the home page. Lou Sander 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage banner?

Is there a banner for this wikiproject? 24.126.199.129 08:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3"/50

I just created a very modest stub at 3"/50 caliber gun. I couldn't find an existing article on it, and I've seen it on a lot of WWII vintage ship articles with no link. Anyway now it's there, so as you go back to improve you favorite ship articles, bear it in mind. And of course being a stub that article could use attention itself as I'm about done for now.--J Clear 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

List of World War II British naval radar

Hi guys, I've compiled a list of World War II British naval radar sets at, oddly enough, List of World War II British naval radar. I've arranged the page so you can pipe links from articles into the relevant sub-section using an anchor (E.g. to link to Type 279, [[List of World War II British naval radar#Type279|Type 279]]). I chose the page name carefully after much checking, as it fits in with the general scheme of things in the electronic warfare articles. Emoscopes Talk 11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the link actually is [[List of World War II British naval radar#Type 279|Type 279]] - note the space in the anchor. Only mentioning it because I used the example above editting the KGV page and found it didn't work right. Martocticvs 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well spotted that man! my bad. Just to reitterate, this is the format; [[List of World War II British naval radar#Type 279|Type 279]] Emoscopes Talk 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic naval flags

It's customary to add the appropriate national or naval flag to various articles, eg ships. What's best: the current version or one appropriate to the ship's historic period? For example: in WWII, Australian and Canadian warships flew the "white ensign" used by the RN. Their own ensigns came into use in the 1960s - so which is best to use? Other affected nations include Italy, Germany, USA (two more stars so no big deal!). Changes have been made to articles to show current flags (eg, HMS Nabob (D77)), so an agreed convention would help. There also seems no set rule about whether to use ensigns (Royal Navy - white ensign; Dutch Navy - naval jack (a nice distinctive one)), other than one that is distinctively naval. Folks at 137 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say what is best would be to use the correct flag for the time, for e.g Canada, Australia although they used the White Ensign, they had unique jacks (e.g. Image:Canadian Blue Ensign.svg, wouldn't that be the appropriate flag? Of course things get complicated where a vessel serves through more than one flag period, but I guess we can just put both up to keep everyone happy. I would take issue with the Nabob article as it uses the modern Canadian Jack, but never served under that flag. Emoscopes Talk 08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The flag should be appropiate for the period. If the period of service covered a change from one flag to another eg Blue Ensign to modern ensign in 1965 then the most recent should take precedence. PS I've edited Nabobs ensign. GraemeLeggett 11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of inconsistency with the use of the "don't tread on me" jack in USN ships articles. A quick survey of Benjamin Franklin class submarine showed a random mix of the 50 star and DTOM Jacks. With the Kamfish, the only one that might actually have flow the DTOM jack, having the 50 star one. Looking at the history of the Carver it appears some of this was due to a bot replacement or a png with an svg jack in March. Does the ship project have a bot programmer who could set the jack correctly based on decomissioning date? While there's possibly some exceptions to that rule, it probably would be better than the current situation. --J Clear 14:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Kamfish was decomissioned about two months before the DTOM flag went into effect. --J Clear 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
RN White Ensign, 1707-1800
RN White Ensign, 1707-1800
With the current discussion about ensigns and jacks going on, I had a think about this again, and discovered that there wasn't a pre-1801 RN white ensign available - so I created and uploaded one. It's not quite right yet (though it is accurate in terms of overall proportions and colours), but I can fix that later easily enough. Martocticvs 15:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated; thanks Martocticvs! TomTheHand 17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I might be wrong here, but didn't the Royal Navy use the Blue, White and Red Ensigns for different squadrons (blue, white and red) up until 1864? Are we going to accomodate for this? Emoscopes Talk 22:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes they did, but that was a matter of internal organisation really. The colour of a squadron was determined by the rank of admiral commanding it, ie a squadron under a vice admiral of the blue would fly blue ensigns. The red ensign was used by the navy also, but it was at the same time the merchant ensign, which caused some confusion at the time, and it would only do so now as well. The white ensign is the recognised symbol of the RN today, and as it was used in all periods when it was the British Royal Navy, I think it's reasonable to use it as a blanket ensign. Also ships of the time would likely have worn all 3 colours at one point or other in their careers. Martocticvs 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What are people's opinions about the ensign to use for the 1620-1707 period for British ships? Because it is before the Scottish Navy merged with the English Royal Navy, the ensign for any Scottish vesel is clearly , but English ships of the time were using the red, white and blue as in later periods. My personal preference is for Image:British-Red-Ensign-1620.svg, as it was the senior of the three, and is the one seen on paintings of ships of the time most often. The white ensign of the time Image:British-White-Ensign-1620.svg you hardly ever (if at all - I can't think of one anyway) see on paintings of ships from the period, although it would be more consistent with the 2 later periods. Martocticvs 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Navyphotos.co.uk

Iv'e been looking round this website ( http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/ ) and it has come to my attention that some of the photos here are supplied by external sources and also appear in many books I have. I would be careful about the exact copyright status of these images as they may just be scans out of books. Emoscopes Talk 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Or the books are using those photos. From the publisher's point of view, free is good, doesn't cut into profit margin. At least four of my own photos uploaded to commons have been reused in print publications, for instance. You can usually detect scans from books by the halftone screen - it leaves a distinctive fuzzy crosshatch pattern across the image. Stan 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RN Ships of the line category

I was just looking through the RN ships of the line category, and there are a couple of entries labelled as 'French ship xxxxxx'. These were ships that served in the Royal Navy, but were either captured from the French Navy, or captured from the Royal Navy by the French. Seeing as this is a category for RN ships, would it not make more sense for the ships to be listed there under their names in the RN? I'll use the example of the Swiftsure - this was a ship built for the RN, and launched as HMS Swiftsure, serving in the RN for 13 years before being captured by the French, and serving with the French navy for just 4 years, retaining the name Swiftsure. When recaptured she was renamed by the RN. I understand why perhaps it is entered as a French ship, thanks to her participation at Trafalgar under the French flag, but as she was also a British ship under the name for far longer, it makes sense to me that she has a page HMS Swiftsure (1787), which can perhaps redirect to the current version? I'm not sure if redirect pages can have categories though... any thoughts? Martocticvs 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no harm in a ship page having categories for more than 1 navy if it served in both. For a subject as obscure as an 18th century ship of the line, I would go with redirecting to the existing page to simplify matters. Emoscopes Talk 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well my thinking was to create the redirect page with the RN category, and remove the RN category from the existing page, that way both the French and RN ships of the line category pages will be accurate... Martocticvs 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, Iv'e no idea if that works, but I guess you can try! Emoscopes Talk 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Got it to work - I think that makes things a bit neater overall. Martocticvs 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's may be working if you're driving from the category page to a ship. However it doesn't work if you get to Swiftsure from some other place, then want to follow up to the category as you'll only see the French category. Also the article needs the HMS Swiftsure name in bold at the beginning, which brings up the question of the article name. Which name for the ship was most notable? Perhaps the article needs a neutral name like just Swiftsure, which could have all applicable categories and still avoid "fouling" the category lists.--J Clear 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe not so good now. That's a very good point. I think these sorts of ships are a little problematic - what would be best is if there was a way to include a page in a category, but not have it show up in the category list - or even better to have it show up on a category page under a different name but I don't think that's possible. In the case of Swiftsure we couldn't just call the page Swiftsure, as there is already something under that name (although it is another ship and so probably doesn't conform to the naming conventions?) Martocticvs 10:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about [[Ship of the line Swiftsure (1787)]] which could be redirected to from [[HMS Swiftsure (1787)]] and [[French ship Swiftsure]] ? Emoscopes Talk 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've run into the same issue many times over the course of my categorization work, and I considered the same solution, but I rejected it because you won't be able to navigate from the article to the proper categories. You can't get from French ship Swiftsure to Category:Royal Navy ships of the line to look up additional RN ships, which I think you should be able to do. TomTheHand 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if it might work better if there was a sub-category under the ships of the line categories - something along the lines of Captured ships of the line - that way the main article could be on a page with a more neutral name under the captured categories of each nation, and the nation-specific redirect pages could carry the correct names for that nation. So HMS Swiftsure (1787) has the RN SOL category, and French ship Swiftsure has the French SOL category, and they both redirect to say, Swiftsure (Royal Navy 1787, France 1801), which would have the captured ships categories. That way you'd still be able to access the SOL categories by going up a level, it just means it involves an extra click... Martocticvs 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a more universal solution would be better. Often a ship is simply sold to a new navy, not captured. I'm also not particularly bothered by French ship Swiftsure being categorized under RN Ships of the Line... I just don't see it being a problem, and I think that the "solutions" just add complexity. This would be a LOT of work for little or no benefit. TomTheHand 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you're right - I've reverted the category changes, but I've left the redirect page as that at least does make sense. Martocticvs 20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and good catch; every ship that served under more than one navy and/or under more than one name should definitely have redirects from each of its names to the primary article. Those redirects can eventually become starting points for new articles; when a ship has a long history and multiple owners it's often beneficial to split the article up and have separate articles for each owner. TomTheHand 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for ship categorization

I've been working on a proposal for the WikiProject's ship categorization policy. Please check it out: User:TomTheHand/WP:SHIPS categorization proposal. It reflects the consensus achieved over the past few months and puts it all in one place. If we can generally agree that it's good, I'd suggest that we create a new page under WP:SHIPS and link from the main page to it, since it's a little bit long to place on our main page. TomTheHand 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any input on this? The proposal is what has evolved out of the categorization project I've been working on for about three and a half months. There are a couple of things about it that I don't quite agree with. I don't think navy categories are necessary; I think just country categories are more than adequate. Also, I think it's redundant to place ship class articles into both "ships by class" categories and ship class categories - for example, Fletcher class destroyer goes into Category:Destroyer classes and Category:Fletcher class destroyers, which ALSO goes into Category:Destroyer classes. I think it should be a hierarchy - Fletcher class destroyer goes into Category:Fletcher class destroyers, which goes into Category:Destroyer classes. Still, this is the compromise proposal that has developed over the course of the project in discussions here. TomTheHand 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
agree, its much easier to navigate a hierarchy than a web. Emoscopes Talk 14:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to see a pretty solid majority before I change the way I categorize ship class articles; though you and I would prefer the straight hierarchy there was some serious dissent back in May-June when we first discussed this. Everyone, please weigh in on this! I'll change it if enough of us agree.
On the subject of navy categories, I'd like to see a few successful merges/renames go through before I change the proposal. Because it requires merges and renames, the proposal needs to get the support of the wider Wikipedia community, and so whatever we agree to here doesn't necessarily matter. There was a solid majority here when I first suggested the merge, but an overwhelming opposition when I proposed it on CFD. TomTheHand 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
agree I just woke up, so I don't comprehend every detail of the proposal referred to above. However, it seems well thought out and well organized, and TomTheHand is a pretty reliable fellow. Lou Sander 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As a few of us seem to be opposed to categorizing by both country and navy, what if I removed the "by navy" guidance from the proposal and stopped categorizing that way? I won't try to remove existing navy categories or merge them into country cats, but I'll stop categorizing that way, since it seems silly for me to do it when I don't like it. People who like the navy cats can use them if they want. Would that be a good idea, for the sake of cleaner, more straightforward categorization, or is it a childish way to get what I want? TomTheHand 13:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's childish. You aren't un-doing someone else's work, you just aren't doing something you don't agree with and that isn't int he MoS or whatever. If you go by country, when I'm tidying articles I'd be happy to go along with you. If anyone wants to come along later and add by navy categories, they are more than welcome to, but if there is one consistent, navigatable hierachry I'm sure it will catch on. Emoscopes Talk 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've been bold and placed the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization, then linked from the main WP:SHIPS page. The old categorization section was pretty out of date, so I believe this one is an improvement, but if changes need to be made to it, let's make them! TomTheHand 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

nothing in there I can find fault with. I'm in. Emoscopes Talk 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't find fault, but did tweak the verbiage a bit and add other bad examples. Please check that they fit.--J Clear 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to go through Royal Navy sloops, and I shall test out your instructions listed above because the current situation is an utter shamble of dead ends, orphaned categories and uncategorised pages. Emoscopes Talk 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! I have not actually done much pre-20th century categorization, so hopefully everything holds up. Something to watch out for with Royal Navy sloops is the Great Britain vs. United Kingdom issue, and some ships might have to be classified as both or something. TomTheHand 00:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was only going through 20th Century sloops, so haven't stumbled across that problem. Category:Sloops of the United Kingdom is what I've set up, hope I've got it right, I tried to follow your instructions as per User:TomTheHand/WP:SHIPS categorization proposal. Emoscopes Talk 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gun article names

Recently there has been an attempt at metrification of the names of guns used in naval artillery. It was being dicussed over at User talk:Bobblewik#Move of 16"/50 (copied below):

I'm not sure that I agree with your move of 16"/50. The article was placed there because the official designation of the gun is the 16"/50 Mark 7; the move places it at an artificial construct of a name. Of course metric measurements should be given in the article, but the article title should be the gun's proper name, not a description of it. 16"/50 Mark 7 naval gun might work better, or a name which works the nationality in: United States 16"/50 Mark 7 naval gun, perhaps? Another example of an article named after the weapon's proper name is 40 cm/45 Type 94. Graeme Leggett noted that the title should probably include nationality and "naval gun", and I agree, but I believe using the gun's official name is important. If we applied your scheme, we'd have 460 mm (18.1 inch)/45 caliber Type 94 naval gun, which is a completely artificial construct that does not reflect the gun's actual name. TomTheHand 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


OK. I was not sure which name to use. I did look around online and within Wikipedia for some convention but did not find anything definitive. You make some good points, I also note [3], which makes me think of other issues. I am open to several options.
I would like to consider this in detail with you but I have to dash. Talk later. bobblewik 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, eager to hear from you later. TomTheHand 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done some research. There is a lot of inconsistency out there. The 'name of gun' reasoning is valid but does always apply when it comes to units. It seems that where a name includes a unit of measurement, people frequently make understandable format variations related to that unit. For example, e.g. the same weapon may be described as 'fifty-cal' and 'half-inch'.
In text, the double quote (") for inch is clearly common when associated with the calibre, although the term 'inch' is frequently used when the caliber is absent (as in 'the 4.5 inch gun'). The term 'inch' is often used in speech. The abbreviation 'in' is also routinely used in text although probably never in speech. I also see that 'caliber' (US) and 'calibre' (UK etc) are sometimes given in full, sometimes abbreviated as 'cal', and sometimes absent.
I am persuaded by your 'name of gun' reasoning that conversions between non-metric and metric are not required unless it is part of the name. So that makes it simpler. Although I am only talking about article names here. Within the article, the millimetre values are needed for reader comprehension and for comparison with ships of other navies.
I think I prefer '16 in' and/or '16 inch' rather than '16"'. I am not sure what to think about '50' but it always seemed odd to me to have a number without a unit. If we used '50 cal', then that would mean we would not have to worry about US and UK spellings for the same thing. That would give me a preference for '16 inch/50 cal' or '16 in/50 cal'. However, I will back down if you insist that '16"/50' is how it should be. :(
I would welcome it if you took this discussion to another talk page (Manual of Style or Ships project?) where some other people could discuss it. My initial reason for moving the pages is that I saw inconsistency. Furthermore, I have started work on a new monobook tool (User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/general.js) to tidy up the *huge* inconsistency within articles. I would welcome input from others. bobblewik 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Ratios don't have units. The 50 refers to the ratio of barrel length to bore diameter, which is the naval definition of "caliber". The guns in question are referred to as 16"/50 caliber at times. The .50 caliber heavy machine gun uses the other definition of caliber, meaning barrel bore inside diameter. In older US Army manuals, caliber implied the diameter in inches (e.g. TM 9-1005-211-34 Direct and General Support Maintenance Manual - Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1).--J Clear 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the units of measurement (mm or inches) cancel each other. But the term 'caliber' is a description of what the ratio involves, not a unit of measurement per se. It is described as 'x calibers' just the same as a horse race is won by 'three lengths' (a ratio of distance to horse length) rather than simply 'three'. It just so happens that in gun terminology the description of what the ratio is may be ommitted. I note the following format: [5-inch Mark 45 54-caliber lightweight gun], [3-inch/23-caliber gun]
Seems like I said this recently elsewhere, but: 1) List of artillery has a lot of good info, and lists a lot of guns. If we made sure every naval gun was on the list, it might be easier to achieve uniformity in naming. 2) I strongly oppose metrification of English units in the names of articles on naval guns. 3) I like the name format 5"/38 caliber gun. I wouldn't mind if the format were 5 inch/38 caliber gun or something like that, but I'd sure want to see a redirect entry for the 5"/38 format. Lou Sander 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Does one need the qualifier "/" if "caliber / calibre" is being included also? I thought that the "/" (or L/) was just shorthand for that? Also, should there be a space between the 5 inch and the "/"? Emoscopes Talk 14:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar discussion

It seems I managed to start an almost identical discussion on a different project, here.

This was my thoughts; I was interested in starting some articles on British naval guns, so took a quick inventory of what is already out there. So far we have;

Obviously, there seems to be no systematic method for naming articles. The official designation of these guns is;

  • BL 15 inch Mark I
  • BL 13.5 inch (various marks)
  • QF 4.5 inch (various marks), until 1950s, when surviving guns became simply 4.5 inch Mark 5, Mark 6, Mark 8.
  • QF 2 pounder (various marks)

I would like to propose some agreed method to name the articles. There is already a fairly systematic naming system for (British) Army guns, e.g Ordnance QF 2 pounder and Ordnance QF 6 pounder, this simply follows the official designation (but drops the gun weight in hundredweights). The Royal Navy designation system is unique as far as I know, I therefore do not think that titles need disambiguated with the word "British". I also think including the mark is over-specific, as apart from the 15 inch and 16 inch guns, most guns went through a large number of marks. For this reason, and the fact that the Royal Navy does not include it in the official designation, I also do not think the calibre should be included; there are, for instance, L/55 and L/45 guns on the page 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun, which should we use? I personally amn't keen either on including millimetres in the title. These guns were never reported with a metric equivalent, or known by such (the sole exception being the foreign Oerlikon 20 mm (QF 20 mm) and Bofors 40 mm (QF 40 mm)). We do not have a page [[Oerlikon 20 mm (0.79 inch) cannon]], likewise we do not include millimetre and inches in the title of the 2 pounder gun article. It also just makes the title that bit more complicated than it really needs to be.

My preferred choice for a titling system would therefore be [[designation, calibre in inches / shell weight in pounds, naval gun]], e.g. [[BL 15 inch naval gun]]. The only shortcoming I can see with this system is where we have a case where a modern, unrelated weapon, is added into a page for historic guns due to a shared calibre - this is the case with the 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun page. However it would be my intention to move this to a page of it's own anyway. Emoscopes Talk 01:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do all the guns have an acceptable preceeding designation? Or are there cases where using it would be inappropriate? Kirill Lokshin 13:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
All weapons have a preceding designation, BL or QF (breech loading / quick firing). There are also historic designations such as RML (rifled muzzle loading) which are a bit out of my field of expertise. Mountings also had a separate Mark and designation (e.g. HA, CP, P, BD, UD, HA/LA). I've summarised and attempted to explain all these on the page British ordnance terms in order that I can pipe the abbreviations to the appropriate anchor in there. Emoscopes Talk 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the examples you mention are poorly titled: the first three are horribly over-engineered, and the fourth overdoes the ambiguity. ("2-pounder" made me think of the tank gun, at least.) While a certain degree of horizontal consistency is a good thing, over-doing it could lead to titles that are neither official, and more to the point, aren't common names. I'd be highly inclined to go with the latter principle, to a reasonable degree "averaged" over generally similarly named classes, and taking precision into account. Alai 14:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to go on a systematic system based on official designations. For instance, if we had a page QF 4 inch naval gun and anchors within that e.g #Mark XVI you could pipe a link in to the correct gun, e.g. [[QF 4 inch naval gun#Mark XVI|QF 4 inch Mark XVI]]. This would work in all cases for British naval guns, as far as I know. Emoscopes Talk 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Given that that name gets zero google hits, it seems an unlikely contender for the "common name", and so is inconsistent with existing naming guidelines (unless you have better sources on the commonness of that reference than that admittedly crude measure). You should really either a) pick the most commonly used name (probably "4 inch naval gun", I'm guessing), b) pick the most commonly used name that's not ambiguous (dunno in this case), or c), my least favoured option, propose a naming convention (and I mean an actual naming convention, not just a wikiproject style note) to fix a particular conventions that instantiates and/or overrides NC(CN). (Probably this is my least favourite option because of the horrendous mess the "US roads" people have just made of such an exercise.) Alai 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not surprised it gets no hits, I've yet to come across any websites that use the correct designations. A simple look at some contemporary gun manuals, or photographs of the breeches of British naval guns would confirm the "correct" designation. (e.g BL 6 inch Mark XXIII, or from The Gunnery Pocket Book, B.R. 224/45 BL 6 inch Mark XXIII, QF 4 inch Mark XVI). If you aren't keen on keeping the QF or BL in there, that would then require a national disambigation, as my original thought was that the British designations would identify the weapon as British (although probably only to those "in the know", now I think of it). However it is worth noting that the BL 4.7 inch and the QF 4.7 inch gun are quite different pieces. I don't wish to impose a WP naming convention, it seems like such a lot of effort for a relatively specialist subject, and most contrivuting authors are involved in these projects so I feel it is best to keep it here as a style guide. Emoscopes Talk 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Given that my legal name gets 10 Google hits and my nickname gets 2,800, would that override naming a wiki bio other than my legal name (assuming I were notable, of course)? Does the RN have any official web sites describing the gun?--J Clear 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Were you notable, I'd assume your legal name (or some variation on it -- Bill Clinton, not "William Jefferson Clinton", note) would get more hits, and/or that'd you'd be "commonly known" by the nickname. I admit that google is a very crude test, and in no way definitive: if you have examples of the "correct" name being used in formal writing and other reference works, that's great. But the existing NC is based on usage, not on officialness. Alai 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Will anyone have a problem with me renaming the following?

I'll run it through a suggested move before hand regardless, just wanted to see if this general format is acceptable. Emoscopes Talk

I'd favour "British 15 inch naval gun" because then you can also do "US 15 inch naval gun" I would also do "Japanese 40 cm naval gun" rather than 40 cm/45 Type 94 because with the latter at a glance you have no idea what its about. Not to say that the first line of British 15 inch naval gun wouldm't say Breech Loading 15 inch somewhere in it. GraemeLeggett 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My rationale for including BL / QF etc. is that somewhere down the line we may need to dab between (say) QF and BL 4.7 inch guns or BL and RML 10 inch guns (I know it's unlikely, but it could potentially happen). Would we then have British QF 4.7 inch gun and British BL 4.7 inch gun? Emoscopes Talk 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case the British 4.7 inch naval gun would serve as overview or disambiguation page. The QF and BL article names could be created as redirects at any time of course. GraemeLeggett 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points I'd like to make. First, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) states that In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)." That's instead of "(nationality adjective) (item)." Second, while I'm fine with renaming 40 cm/45 Type 94 to include a nationality and "naval gun", it should not be called "Japanese 40 cm naval gun" because it was not a 40 cm gun. It was a 46 cm gun with a deceptive name. I think its name needs to be used rather than a description, though I suppose we could put it at "46 cm naval gun of Japan" if we insist on using a description. TomTheHand 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Would that give us QF 4 inch naval gun of the United Kingdom or QF 4 inch gun of Britian ? Emoscopes Talk 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC) After all, Britain isn't a country.
I believe that'd give us QF 4 inch naval gun of the United Kingdom, which is ridiculously long. *sigh* I understand the reasoning behind the "of (country)" preference, but it does lengthen things. I don't think we usually need to append "(of country)," though. To me "QF" implies that the weapon is British; the American equivalent is "RF" for rapid-firing. TomTheHand 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You've misread the application of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) - its a subset of "Places". Don't forget that RF and QF may imply things for you but not necessarily for the majority. GraemeLeggett 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been coming round to that way of thinking myself, I'm far more against putting "Quick Firing 4 inch naval gun" in than I am against dropping "QF". Still is it not rather obvious that it is part of the designation? So where does that leave us at? Emoscopes Talk 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I have misread it. Examples they give of its application are "History of Portugal" and "Wars of Great Britain". An example from the talk page is "Olympic athletes of Canada." The reasoning behind it (found on the talk page) applies to all topics. I guess I don't understand what you mean by 'a subset of "Places"'. TomTheHand 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Suggest articles should be named for the name of the gun in the era it was used. Otherwise we're going to get in to problems with the british 2 pounder and 44 lb. carronades. My feeling is that metrification doesn't apply to names. I'm not going to Amazon and look up The Longest Yard (91.44 cm). Metric values should appear early in the introduction on the gun article. Suggest using format 5"/38 caliber (127 mm x 4.8 m) in other articles.--J Clear 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I apologize for not taking the conversation over here as Bobblewik suggested... I got involved in a bunch of other things and it slipped my mind. I think articles should be titled based on the name given to the gun by the navy that used it, translated into English if necessary. However, we need to consult some sources on this to make sure we get the right name. I think that the 16"/50 Mark 7 was referred to as exactly that, and I don't think the word "caliber" should be used in the title, though it should be used in the article intro. I think "naval gun" should be in the title, and I'd like to work the nationality in as well. "United States 16"/50 Mark 7 naval gun" is kind of what I'd like to see. TomTheHand 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, like I say above, noone would think of looking up a 0.79 inch Oerlikon Cannon, it was never known as such, just as (for example) the British BL 15 inch was never known as the BL 381 mm gun. What is to be achieved by metrification of article titles? I still think it's important, for British guns, to keep the designation in there. there are a few cases where this disambiguation may be neccessary (e.g. RML 10 inch or BL 10 inch, QF 6 inch or BL 6 inch, QF 4.7 inch or BL 4.7 inch). Emoscopes Talk 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We also need to establish a standard for " vs. inch in naval gun articles. If there is a strong consensus here that " is the way the guns were named historically, I think at least for the purposes of naming them, we should use that way. I don't have an issue with spelling inch out in the internals of the article using general MoS. But we do need to come up with a consensus to dscourage arbitrary moves.--J Clear 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

see my references above, "inch" is definitely the term used for Royal Navy guns. Emoscopes Talk 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As a further argument toward using the historical name, I don't see anyone renaming Royal Mile anytime soon.--J Clear 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthering the use of the historical name again, take the 4.5 inch / 114 mm gun. It actually has a bore of 4.45 inches, but the Royal Navy seemingly only rounded up to 1 decimal place at the time, so it was known as the 4.5 inch gun. This was carried over with the conversion to metric, and it is reported as the 114 mm gun now, not the 113 mm gun, its true bore. Emoscopes Talk 02:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
1) Don't forget the List of artillery, which measures everything in mm, shows 'em from small to large, and lists the name of the gun, many of 'em in inches. 2) It seems pretty silly (or worse) to me to convert inches to mm in the name of the article. Hey, a 3"/50 was known as a 3"/50, not some hybridized English and metric thing. And a 40mm was known as a 40mm, not some combination of inches and mm. 3) I'm agnostic as to using "inches" or the symbol for inches, but it should be consistent, and there should be redirects. I'm kind of partial to using the symbol in the names, though. 4) Let's not forget that most of these guns are no longer around, so we're not doing anybody any favors by doing metric/English conversions -- use the familiar original names. Lou Sander 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I am pro using inch in the title, rather than the double apostrophe. In some cases an article may need to be more generic until expanded and so the (made up example) title could be German 175 mm naval gun which ticks most all the boxes under naming conventions. GraemeLeggett 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest that we only include the calibre lengths (in a format yet to be agreed upon) where the calibre is in the designation and the article refers to one specific mark or family of guns. 1/ it obfuscates the article title, and when you are adding wikilinks it's a bugger to try and get complicated article titles correct. 2/ Reitterate my argument that often a series of guns (e.g British 4.5 inch) will have a number of different calibres. Emoscopes Talk 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should only include the length in calibers when it's actually in the official designation of the gun and the article is about that specific gun (not a whole family of the same bore diameter). I think double apostrophe is actually used in official designations of US guns, so I don't think inch should be used there. I also don't think "caliber" should be used; I think we should be going for something like '5"/38 naval gun' with a complete description and explanation in the intro. TomTheHand 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, we should leave "caliber" in the article name. It' an important descriptor of what the "38" refers to. Without it, folks might be mystified. Lou Sander 15:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2

From the views expressed above, I would propose that we have some sort of a concensus on the following issues;

  1. Prefix guns by country Suffix guns by country, in brackets, where appropriate for dab purposes, e.g "[[4 inch naval gun (United Kingdom)|]]" (or Prefix by company where appropriate, e.g. Oerlikon, Bofors, Hispano, Hotchkiss, Skoda)
  2. Suffix guns by "naval gun" where appropriate, e.g. not for weapons used widely on land / sea / air such as the Oerlikon and Bofors guns
  3. Report units in the system by which they were officially known, e.g. Imperial/US for British and US weapons, metric for European weapons.
  4. Report units in the format by which they were officially known, e.g. " for US, inch for British
  5. Only include calibres where they are part of the gun designation, or to disambiguate from a similar weapon (yet to agree whether we need the word "caliber"), e.g. US 5"/38
  6. Include any other official designation style for disambiguation, e.g QF or BL prefix for British weapons, Marks where there are separate articles for different weapons

A few examples for illustration;

your thoughts? Emoscopes Talk 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree that there's consensus on the above, except prefixing the article name with the country. I think that to do so would make the articles terribly difficult to find. Redirect pages could fix this, but still the article name would be artificial, IMHO. Lou Sander 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
See my above comments about WP:NC(CN), except even moreso. Arbitrarily prefixing a country name (or an adjective: you appear to not be consistent about that) is going to make the name less commonly-used, not moreso. Determine the common name, with some regard to consistency over a related series of guns; disambiguate by country, or otherwise as further needed, parenthetically. Bear in mind that articles are supposed to be at names, as they'd be linked to in other articles, not "official designations", and much less, descriptions. Alai 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see how prefixing the country name might be confusing, but at the same time I think it may be useful/necessary for disambiguation. I... guess maybe they should be left off unless needed to disambiguate between two different countries' guns with similar names. TomTheHand 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If there are two guns commonly called (let's say) "4 inch naval gun", then "4 inch naval gun (United Kingdom)" and "4 inch naval gun (Somewhere Else)" is clearer as to what's the common name, and what's being added to that specially for disambiguation. (If it's somewhat commonly called by some unambiguous name, that's less clear-cut.) It's also somewhat more convenient if you want to link to "[[4 inch naval gun (United Kingdom)|]]" in another article. But this all supposes what the common name is... Alai 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, Alai. One of my arguments for adding BL / QF in the first place was to avoid needint to dab by country, but this "optional extra" you suggest should solve any potential problems that arise. Emoscopes Talk 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of omitting the country unless there is an ambiguity.--J Clear 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Official" names of guns

These aren't necessarily easy to find. I found one source HERE, though. Note the inclusion of the word "caliber," which I recall from long ago was typical. the reference uses "inch" instead of the double quote, but I have a feeling that form wasn't universal. I'm going to keep looking for some sort of "official" reference. Lou Sander 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify something: J Clear wrote: I don't see anyone renaming Royal Mile anytime soon..
Good example of how everything is not quite what it seems. It is a Scottish mile long. bobblewik 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I was half worried when I pointed that out that you'd rename it to Royal Mile (1.8 km).--J Clear 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Touché. :)
bobblewik 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gun designations

Without wishing to re-ignite a settled debate, has a convention for gun naming been agreed? Is it recorded somewhere? Does any Wiki list reflect this, yet? I'd like to link warship articles to the guns they use and I need some guidance. Folks at 137 11:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming "modern ships" categories

Ok, we've discussed this issue several times before but never taken action. I've always said "I'll do it later." Well, later is now!

The Category:Modern ships structure is used to categorize ships that are in service right now. I think it's a good, useful structure, but many times we've discussed how "Modern ships" isn't really the best title. It's very vague. To some it implies that the ships are up-to-date and high-tech, which may or may not be the case. To others it implies that the ships are of the 20th century ("modern era"), which also may or may not be the case. We need a new name that really means "ships that are in service right now." "Contemporary" has been suggested in the past, and I think that's a good one, but it has that relative-ness that I don't like. Contemporary with what? I guess when it's not specified one should assume right now, but I'd be more comfortable with a term that specifically means "right now." My best ideas are "Currently serving ships" and "Present-day ships." If we can come up with some kind of consensus I'll propose the big move over on CFD.

There's another issue as well. We have a "Cold War ships" cat and a "Modern ships" cat, but nothing to cover the period between the end of the Cold War and now. If a ship decommissioned in 2003, that's over a decade of post-Cold War service, but she doesn't belong in a "currently serving ships" category. Anyone have a good name for a category to cover the period between the end of the Cold War and today? "Post Cold War" is the best I can come up with. I would probably say that the "Post Cold War" category should only contain ships that left service since 1991, or it'll end up too redundant to "Modern ships".

Again, I apologize for bringing this up for the nth time, but I'll really propose the renames this time once we work this out. TomTheHand 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Active ships? Commissioned ships? A ship doesn't neccesarily need to be in an era category, I don't see the point in inventing one for "recent" ships just because they don't have one, but I see the utility in a category for currently serving ships. Emoscopes Talk 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I like "Active", so unless there's opposition within the next day or so I'll propose the renames using "Active." It's possible that a different name will be proposed once this is sent over to CFD and that will wind up being used, but as long as we end up with something more accurate than "Modern" I'll be satisfied. TomTheHand 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, probably "Active" is the best way. Concerning ships decommissioned in 1991-2006... Well, if they were built during the Cold War, they can be called Cold War ships. I don't think we have a lot of ships built after 1991 and already decommissioned. But probably this category will become necessary in the future. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I would go with 'Active' as well - just because a ship is de-commissioned doesn't mean it is out of use permanently. Ships are de-commissioned whenever they return to port and their captain goes elsewhere. They may be immediately re-commissioned under a new captain, or it might be several days or weeks before that happens - that could lead to some annoying fiddling around with the category tags to keep things up to date if the cat was called 'Commissioned ships'. Martocticvs 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in infobox

I am trying to make the units in the infobox more consistent.

If anyone wants to help, feel free to use my monobook tool User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/general.js. Let me know if you would like help getting it to work. bobblewik 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

48 star jack
48 star jack
24 star jack
24 star jack
15 star jack
15 star jack
13 star jack
13 star jack
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

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)

Homeports

Hi. You reverted my edit to USS Georgia (SSGN-729), saying, "(rv - homeports are ports, not bases, see http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/lists/homeport.asp)". I'm not clear on what your objection is; that's a list of Navy facilities, not seaports. The Navy isn't renting civilian berthing space for its ships. The bases mostly take their names from the cities they're in, but, for instance, there's no town called Little Creek, Virginia. Towns like Bangor, Washington and Kings Bay, Georgia sort-of exist, but they're not where the ships are really docked, IMO.

There seems to be a couple of civilian shipyards on the list also, or at least that's the best guess I can make for the intended distinctions between "Groton, CT" & "Groton, Conn.", and "San Diego, CA" & "San Diego, Calif." I couldn't find any other reference to the Texas being in Groton, but "During the first few months of 2006, HALSEY completed her Post Shakedown Availability at BAE Shipyard in San Diego, Calif. In April, HALSEY left the shipyard..."[4]
—wwoods 07:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I should have referred to question I posed over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Homeport when I saw your edit. My point being even the Navy lists the homeport by Port, not by Naval Base. When I dug up that navy list while composing the question, I felt that was enough for the revert. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. If the consensus develops for the other way, I'll put it back. --J Clear 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into CT vs. Conn. and CA vs. Calif. I thought those were just database incosistencies and lack of editing. --J Clear 11:23, 30 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 United States Navy ensign, 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 United States Navy Ensign, the current jack, in infobox size.
  • {{USN flag|1945}} gives United States Navy ensign, the jack as used in 1945, in infobox size.
  • {{USN flag|1865|20}} gives United States Navy ensign, 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 [5], Canadian Navy [6] and Australian Navy [7]. The New Zealand Navy [8] 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;

White Ensign of the Royal Navy
 Commissioned Royal Navy Ships
Union Jack of the Royal Navy
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)

Index Pages

I'd like to make a suggestion about index pages. How about creating rediretions for ship index pages with "(ship index)" attached, similar to "(disambiguation)" redirect pages for links to disambiguation pages? Then links intentionally linking to ship indices can link via these redirects, which would help sort out links which should link to specific ships. --Kusunose 06:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this helps sorting. At least for the current collection of links, someone would still have to determine which are intentionally directed to the "ship index", which is essentially the same task as determining which are inadvertant and should be dab'd to a particular ship article. You've increased the work since you not only have to fix links that need to be dab'd, but need to change links that are legitimately to the "ship index". Going forward, lazy or uninformed editors are still going to link to USS Foobar in both cases. Is there really that big a problem out there? --J Clear 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Double category membership

I (TomTheHand) am copying this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Categorization so more people can see it:

My impression is that if an article is a member of a sub cat it should not be a member of the main category. For Example, USS Spruance (DD-963) is a member of Category:Spruance class destroyers and Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy, I believe it should only be a member of Category:Spruance class destroyers since it is a sub cat of Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy. Is this correct or is the existing dual membership correct? If not, I plan on doing an AWB run to remove a bunch from dual membership, but I wanted to check here first. I'm basing this on: "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges."(Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines) --Dual Freq 01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The dual categorization is correct. Though there is a general guideline that if an article is a member of a subcat it shouldn't be a member of the main cat, duplication is appropriate when it makes it easier to find articles instead of harder (by making the category structure more complicated). In the case you mention, Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy can be used by people who don't know or don't want to bother with class names and just want to see all American destroyers. Category:Spruance class destroyers can be used by people who specifically want to see all the ships in the Spruance class. When you look at Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy you can clearly see class names at the top and specific ships at the bottom, so it's easy to use. TomTheHand 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can respect that, it just seems that it would clutter the main category to put ships in both. I've probably moved some others in the past few months to conform with normal categorization guidelines and with the idea that if someone is reading the Spruance article and clicks the class category that cat will link them to the destroyer cat via the link at the bottom and they can surf backwards through the category system. Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy contains over 200 articles and wraps to a second page making it a pretty decent example of overcrowding. If someone has a specific ship name in mind, but doesn't know the class they might be looking a long time. Especially if they don't know a cruiser from a destroyer or frigate. Seems like the best bet would be for them to type the name into the search rather than scroll through several categories looking for the ship name. It makes even less sense to load the main category when you look at the List of United States Navy destroyers article, it provides the same capability dual category membership provides. I envisioned each ship in a single category and the Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy showing only sub cats and only the destroyer names that didn't fit into the sub cats. I was scolded on double cat membership a while back, maybe over on Commons, but I was informed it was a no-no to have an article in the same category twice via a sub cat. Anyway, I guess I'll leave things be if that's what this wikiproject is doing.

Maybe it could be clarified on this page, the line "A subcategory of Category:Ships by country" seems to indicate that since Category:Spruance class destroyers is a sub-cat of Category:United States Navy ships Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy is unneeded. The example is USS Enterprise (CVN-65), but it is a ship that is not a member of a class so that didn't help me understand that WP:SHIPS was looking for dual category membership. Sorry to bug you on this. --Dual Freq 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships to get further opinions on this; I don't know how many people watch this page. I don't actually think that someone who was looking for the name of a ship would be looking for a long time. The ship articles are in alphabetical order, and there are only two pages of them.
I think it's useful to dual list the articles, but if the consensus on the main talk is to stop doing this, I'll stop. TomTheHand 13:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put more thought into it and what you're saying makes a lot of sense; it might be better to use list articles to put all ships in one place. Still, it's hard for me to change my mind because I've spent so long thinking this way and categorizing articles like this. I'm pasting this to the main WP:SHIPS talk to get more input. TomTheHand 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
To me, the logic in dual-membership is that say you are looking for a specific ship, you might not know it is a member of the spruance class, so you might just navigate into the Category:Destroyers of the United States category, and from there, if there were only subcats by class, you would be at a dead end unless you navigated all the potential class subcats. Therefore I see a useful logic in a ship being a member of both the highest and lowest levesl of the category hierarchy. Emoscopes Talk 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's necessary to provide a solution for people who may not know what class a ship is, but I think Dual Freq is suggesting that they would be better helped by List of United States Navy destroyers and other equivalent list articles. While I think smaller categories like Category:Battleships of the United States are clean and useful, I'm actually pretty bothered by the way Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy splits across two pages. I'd be fine with it if it listed all subcats on page 1, started on the ship articles, and finished up the ship articles on page 2, but the way it splits subcats between the two pages seems confusing to me. Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy does it too, and we're going to have the same problem with Category:Submarines of the United States once it's populated. TomTheHand 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree in with that, having a wikilink to the relevant list of ships in the header of the category (I believe there are templates for this) would be good. the list also has the advantage of including redlinked ships that will not be in categories as the article is yet to be created. Emoscopes Talk 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so is this going to be the plan for the future? Individual ship articles should not be members of their respective country categories, and should be accessible in the Category:Ships by country structure only by going through the class categories first? Access to ships without knowing their class will be provided through list articles, like List of United States Navy destroyers. TomTheHand 15:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know as well so I can be sure my edits are in line with this project. If the project decides to remove double categorization, it's going to take quite a bit of time to fix all of the articles that are doubled up. For an article to belong to a category only one time seems best inline with wikipedia's main categorization guidelines. --Dual Freq 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories, double categorization is a-ok as long as it makes it easier to find articles; I think that should be our sole consideration. It would be really good to get more input, guys! Dual Freq, Emoscopes and I are the only ones who've put in their two cents so far. TomTheHand 13:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well it looks like the three of us are the only ones who are going to give an opinion, and we all agree that as long as a complete list article exists, and the ship article is a member of a class category which is a member of a country category, there is no need for the ship article to also belong to the country category. I'll adjust the categorization guidelines.

Dual Freq, I have a couple of requests as you AWB around, removing cats: first, could you also try to insert a link to the appropriate list article? Second, could you make sure that the ship article is a member of a class article before removing the country? TomTheHand 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So a "See also" link to the list article in each ship article? As a test, I just did USS Spruance (DD-963), removing the Destryoers of US cat and adding a see also to the list. Is this the style we are looking for? --Dual Freq 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was exactly what I was talking about. Thanks! TomTheHand 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I imagine that if country categories don't belong directly on ship articles, navy categories probably don't either; are we in agreement about that or should I leave navy categories alone? TomTheHand 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of the navy category? --Dual Freq 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Cruisers of the United States vs. Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy, or Category:Aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom vs. Category:Royal Navy aircraft carriers. TomTheHand 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, another thing to watch out for: When a ship is sold to another navy, I'll put that country's cat on it. For example, USS Bang (SS-385) was sold to Spain, so I put a Submarines of Spain cat on it. I don't think it's appropriate to put that cat on the class category, because only one or two Balao-class subs out of over a hundred were sold to Spain. In that case, I think the Submarines of Spain cat should remain on the ship article. TomTheHand 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lately, I've been putting the other-navy cat on the redirect. So in this case I'd have put it on "SPS Cosme Garcia (S34)". —wwoods 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We've had discussions on the subject of categories on redirects before and I think we decided that it's not a very good idea; while it allows you to go from Category:Submarines of Spain to USS Bang (SS-385) through the SPS Cosme Garcia (S34) redirect, it makes it impossible to go in the opposite direction (from the ship article to Submarines of Spain). TomTheHand 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks, I just noticed this as Tom showed up on my watchlist (the Bowfin). I've been kind of busy with other things. For what it's worth, I do agree that the right decision has been arrived at. ... aa:talk 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-expert question

I know very little about these articles, but it seems like Oiler (ship), Replenishment oiler, and Underway replenishment oiler overlap a bit. Could some of these be merged? If they shouldn't be merged, it would be very good to briefly mention what distinctions might exist between them. --Interiot 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's try to come up with a sort of summary of what we know about these ships and then decide what kinds of articles should exist about them.
The US Navy operates or has operated five types of ships that start with AO (auxiliary oiler). Here's a list of them, and my understanding of what they do, which may be wrong:
  1. AO (oiler) - exclusively carries liquid fuels, such as fuel oil and jet fuel
  2. AOG (gasoline tanker) - not used today, but used during WWII when it was necessary to transport gasoline for piston-engined aircraft
  3. AOR (replenishment oiler) - carries liquids as well as dry goods to replenish ships
  4. AOE (fast combat support ship) - like an AOR but larger, with more capacity, and faster
  5. AOT (transport oiler) - pretty much a civilian tanker in USN service
Now, looking at the above articles, it seems Replenishment oiler is about AORs. AOR literally stands for Auxiliary Oiler, Replenishment, so that explains that. Confusingly,Underway replenishment oiler is about AO's, even though they don't have the dry goods replenishment capability that gives AOR's their R. They're simple oilers, but they are able to refuel ships while underway, AKA "Underway replenishment."
Ok, so what's it boil down to? I think Underway replenishment oiler needs to be merged into oiler (ship), and an "underway replenishment" sub-section should be added. Much of the info on underway replenishment oiler needs to be merged to Henry J. Kaiser class oiler because it's specific to that class.
I think Replenishment oiler might need to be merged into oiler (ship) as well, in a subsection dealing with combination fuel/dry goods replenishment ships. Once again, a lot of the information needs to be merged onto the US class-specific page. Replenishment oiler is too US-centric; that's what we call them, but other navies operate ships that are identical in function but they have their own names for them. TomTheHand 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I was going to bring this up. I think that the hull-designation codes should have their own page, where specific USN vessels can be discussed, and then there should be general info pages on each of these types of vessels. (We can agree common names, there will be lots of variations). I've been working a lot on bringing the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries of equivalent types to some sort of common standard, and have found that the only place to link to is the nearest USN equivalent, rather than a page about replenishment oilers in general. Emoscopes Talk 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
further to this, the British equivalent names for these vessel types are;
  • AO - Fleet tanker
  • AOG - Spirits tanker (defunct)
  • AOR - Replenishment oiler / tanker
  • AOT - Support tanker
Emoscopes Talk 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of a separate page (article?) on hull designations. There is good information available about this for USN ships -- I've seen it but I can't lay my hands on it this second. Lou Sander 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There also seems to be no common standard for when a hull-code is used as the standard name for a type of vessel. For instance, the article for LCTs is called Landing craft tank, but that for LSTs is called Tank landing ship. Again, that for LPHs is called Landing Platform, Helicopter and that for LSDs is called Dock Landing Ship. So, for AORs would we go for Auxiliary Oiler Replenisher, Replenishment Oiler or something else? Emoscopes Talk 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Referring to the MoS, we should 1) spell out acronyms and 2) only capitalise in titles for proper nouns. Whether that makes Landing ship tank or Tank landing ship correct is debatable, to my mind the latter is the natural way of describing the ship and therefore preferable, as the former is an artefact of the hull-classification symbol. Emoscopes Talk 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the most natural and descriptive title for the article and not base it directly on the USN's hull classification symbol. TomTheHand 15:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Destroyers - done

I just wanted to share my own personal Happy Dance that we (not the royal "we", but the collective "we") have completed all of the USN destroyers. Obviously this was the work of the community and it feels good to see the list of nearly 1000 ships -- all with pretty blue links. Woohoo! Jinian 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job, in addition to that, only 3 destroyer leaders, USS Worden (DLG-18), USS England (DLG-22) and USS Halsey (DLG-23) remain and the whole page will be blue. FYI, commons:Category:Leahy class cruiser has images of all 3. --Dual Freq 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done, all hands. —wwoods 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I second the Well Done (or Bravo Zulu, as it is sometimes said). A little housekeeping might be in order. All or part of the very long list of USN destroyers would benefit by being shown in two (or three?) columns, as are many of the ships shown HERE. I don't know how to do it efficiently myself, but maybe somebody else could bear a hand. Lou Sander 15:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed List of United States Navy cruisers has ships listed by hull number and by name in another column, maybe that could be duplicated. Is there a preferred standard for list pages? --Dual Freq 15:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (Update:I've just sorted the list similar to the USN cruiser list, revert if you don't like it. It only took a few minutes to do) --Dual Freq 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, that page is almost all bluelinks as well, with the exception of two early cruisers and three or four more WWII-era cancelled ships (some so obscure they're not mentioned in the page on the class - it may be worth checking those names were actually assigned to them) Shimgray | talk | 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I redirected the canceled ships to their ship index pages and made sure that it included cancellation dates and info from DANFS. Also, [9] [10] Image:USS Cincinnati (C-7).jpg. [11] [12] Image:USS Detroit (C-10) circa 1890s.jpg or Image:USS Detroit (C-10) at anchor.jpg. That should help with the last two. Last two done. --Dual Freq 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dance over. On to destroyer escorts. No rest for the wicked... Jinian 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, as of now (23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)), there are now no redlinks for active Royal Navy ships :) Emoscopes Talk 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

DANFS errata

By the way, I happened to notice that the index page for DANFS now has an email address for reporting errors. Dunno how long it's been there. —wwoods 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Find an Error?

To report errors in individual entries or to make suggestions for improvement contact the Ships History Branch at:

Naval Historical Center (SH)
Washington Navy Yard
805 Kidder Breese Street SE
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060

or e-mail your suggested correction to shiphistory@navy.mil.

Please be advised, however, that requests for research assistance or information sent to this e-mail address will not be answered. All queries of that nature must be sent to the address listed above. All suggested corrections will be reviewed for accuracy. If you have documentation supporting a change please provide it to assist us in making pertinent changes.
Good to know, but not sure how proactive I'll be about this. Some of the errors are minor (like Warden instead of Worden), but others are more egregious (wrong name of Soviet vessel). Hmmm. It would be good to give back to DANFS after what they have given to us. Jinian 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Ships or Cutters?

I'm working on a list of USCG cutters, User:Dual Freq/List of United States Coast Guard ships, and I was wondering what to name it when copying to mainspace. I'm considering, List of United States Coast Guard ships or List of United States Coast Guard cutters. United States Coast Guard Cutter says a Cutter is a United States Coast Guard vessel 65 feet in length or greater, having adequate accommodations for crew to live on board. Ships would seem to match naming convention like List of United States Navy ships, but cutters would limit it to larger ships that may be noteworthy enough to have an article about. Opinions? Is it even worthy of mainspace, after some work? --Dual Freq 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I've heard no comments, I'm leaning towards List of United States Coast Guard cutters. --Dual Freq 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, draft is done, for the most part, maybe I should have named the article List of United States Coast Guard redlinks. --Dual Freq 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Good work! you've obviously put in a lot of hard work and research to the list :) Emoscopes Talk 21:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dual entry: Bangladeshi Navy

Is there a reason for the dual entry of Bangladeshi Navy on the ensign-page? Both the naval ensign and the civil ensign are shown. --Sir48 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

just a mistake by the looks of it, i have ammended Emoscopes Talk 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

HMS Bounty

I believe the article Mutiny on the Bounty could really do with looking at. Being quite a well known historical event in the history of the Royal Navy, it seems a bit disappointing that the article is the subject of a long and ongoing discussion as to whether it is HMS or HMAV Bounty. Additionally it doesnt follow the standards for articles about specific ships. (HMS Bounty redirects to Mutiny on the Bounty, should it not be the other way around and should the article not? Does anyone have any comments on this? JonEastham 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

HMS Bounty should definitely be a ship or dab page imho. Even just so as it can be put into the correct categories. Emoscopes Talk 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed (although from everything I have ever read on the subject, there is no question that she should be correctly listed as HMAV Bounty). The mutiny was a significant event, and so warrants its own article, but the ship itself was significant because of that event, and so also warrants its own article. Martocticvs 00:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Rightyho, HMS Bounty should redirect to HMAV Bounty, which should be put in the appropriate categories (even just as a {{UK-mil-ship-stub}} and with appropriate links to Mutiny on the Bounty. Emoscopes Talk 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Shelter deck / full scantling

C1-A USS Cyrene (AGP-13) with Shelter deck
C1-A USS Cyrene (AGP-13) with Shelter deck
C1-B USS Cape Johnson (AP-172) with full scantling
C1-B USS Cape Johnson (AP-172) with full scantling

Many articles and sources on WWII cargo ships use these terms to differentiate between two versions of the same basic hull design. Their meanings are elusive, or at least have been to me. Can anyone clarify them? Lou Sander 14:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Scantlings are the frames of a ship. A shelter deck is a deck raised above the main deck level, in effect, "sheltering" whatever is on the main deck below. I found this descrpition by googling with reference to merchantmen;
The shelter deck is the second or 'tween deck in the cargo spaces
Make of that what you will :) Emoscopes Talk 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I found that stuff, too. I still don't know the difference between a shelter deck ship and a full scantling ship of the same general type. It seems to be an important difference, and one would think it could be explained pretty simply, maybe with a diagram. Lou Sander 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
i agree, I only know these terms with regard to general ship construction, shelter decks particularly on older warships. I've no idea how they categorise merchant vessels. Emoscopes Talk 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you point us to some examples so we can research the context? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, from CHAPTER I--COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (CONTINUED) PART 69_MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS--Table of Contents;
Shelter deck means the uppermost deck that would have qualified as the uppermost complete deck had it not been fitted with a middle line opening.
Thus, a shelter deck cannot contribute to gross tonnage, as there is some sort of opening in the side plating that would allow the water in. I am therefore presuming that "full scantling" is the opposite of this, with the frames continued up to the level of the highest full-length deck? Emoscopes Talk 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Type C1 ship uses both terms. --Dual Freq 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further research shows the C1-A type has 1,000 tons less gross weight, so definitely barking up the right tree here! Emoscopes Talk 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you already found better photos than I could! :) Basically, what this must mean is that the framing in a shelter deck ship does not extend all the way up to the highest continuous deck level, therefore this "enclosed space" cannot contribute to gross tonnage as if it was below the waterline, there would be no framing to support it. This is not a problem in the full scantling type where the frames continue up to the level of the main deck. Therefore, a full scantling type would have a higher gross weight, but would ultimately displace more and be slower and more consuming of materials to construct. If a vessel does not need this space to contribute to gross displacement, then the shelter deck type is a more efficient vessel. Emoscopes Talk 01:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
To summarise, a shelter deck type vessel would be better suited to carrying bulky, lighter cargoes, and a full scantling type to more compact but weighty ones. (presuming my definition is correct!!) Emoscopes Talk 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This is my understanding so far (and I may be wrong): The frames are the large structural members that start at the keel and go up the side of the ship. A full scantling ship would have the frames go all the way up to the main deck. A shelter deck ship would have the frames go only up to the second deck (the deck below the main deck). I don't know exactly what would support the main deck, but I'm guessing it would be plating on the sides of the ship, unreinforced by the extended frames. If you looked at both ships from outside, or from any deck below the second deck, you might not be able to see a difference. If you were on the second deck, you could see frames on the full scantling ship, but not on the shelter deck ship.
The difference has something to do with cargo carrying capacity, but I'm not sure what it is. There's also something about openings and tonnage, but once again I'm not sure what it is; I'm aware that openings somehow affect tonnage, which is some sort of measure of cargo carrying capacity rather than weight or displacement, but I don't know more than that.
Am I on the right track on this? (I suspect there may be some holes in my understanding.) Lou Sander 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We are most definitely on the same track. With cargo ships, you can measure what it can carry in terms of volume (tonnage i.e. Net Tonnage), or in terms of weights (displacement i.e. Deadweight). The Net Tonnage is an expression of the volume of all the cargo carrying spaces and the Deadweight is an expression of the total weight of cargo that the displacement of the ship can support. Obviously, if you increase the weight of cargo over the Deadweight, the ship sinks deeper in the water, and at some point an opening in the side will be below the waterline; the ship can no longer support its displacement and will sink. A full scantling and a shelter deck ship may be of equal tonnage, but the full scantling one would have a higher deadweight. Emoscopes Talk 03:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to turn my wikihand to illustration (see Image:LMFBR schematics.png, Image:Sea Dart missile.png ), if we can agree on a definition I could quite easily knock up a nice diagram to explain this. Anyone turned up anymore info? Emoscopes Talk 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships User Template

I am new to this WikiProject. I was wondering if there was a template for the user page similar to what WPMILHIST has. If it is out there, I haven't been able to find it. --JAYMEDINC 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

{{user ships}} <-- This is what your after 8o) JonEastham 12:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) 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) 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Shipindex template

I have only just discovered this, and think it is well worth pointing out, as Category:Lists of ships is an un-navigable dog's breakfast of a category. When using the {{shipindex}} template on a dab page for ships of the same name, it enters the ships at Category:Lists of ships by namespace, unless you pipe it in this format; {{shipindex|name="shipname"}}. So, for the correct example of USS Ashlands, we put {{shipindex|name="Ashland"}} as a footer on the namespace USS Ashland. In the meantime, does anyone have any suggestions about how to clean up that horrific category? Emoscopes Talk 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe somebody can use a bot to look for articles in the category without "name=", and with names beginning "USS " or "HMS "; delete the prefix and use the rest to create the name parameter?
—wwoods 05:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your help is needed

User:Cerejota has made a speedy move of Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK) with no consultation whatsoever! How do we go about reversing this situation, which, despite being in order to adhere to WP policy, breaks any number of other policies in doing so. I have asked the user concerned to join the debate here. Please voice your opinions and support! Emoscopes

It appears that someone's moved it back pending further discussion. TomTheHand 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO, as bad ideas go, moving Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK) is one heck of a dozy. Can you imagine how much chaos would be caused if we started renaming articles not because they had similar English names, but because the articles might have a similar translated name in any one of the 39,491 languages and dialects used on the planet?!? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I know there are other Royal Navies around, the Swedish one springs to mind - but when you say the Royal Navy, everyone the world over (provided they have at least some knowledge of European countries) knows that it is Britain's navy you refer to. Royal Navy (UK) should exist for sure, but it should only be a redirect to Royal Navy. Martocticvs 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Colledge

People might be interested to know that a new (fourth) edition of Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy has been published this month - Chatham Publishing, ISBN 186176281X. Seems to be a one-volume edition, with a significant amount of the content of the old two-volume version - they've dropped some of the minor vessels which used to be in vol. 2, but kept "all the genuine fighting ships - like the numbered Coastal Forces craft" (sayeth Amazon). Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Courageux

Can anyone think of a good reason why the Courageux article is so named, and not French ship Courageux? She was notable for being taken by the Bellona, and nothing else really. Martocticvs 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at some of the cats with French ships (Category:Aircraft carriers of the French Navy, Category:World War II submarines of France, etc.), it would appear that mis-named articles are not an uncommon problem. You can (probably) safely move the articles to their proper names as you run into them (provided, of course, that you follow the ship naming conventions). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It probably helps that a) "Courageux" isn't likely to be used for anything else in English other than as a proper noun, and b) she also served in the RN under that name (she's down here, 1799, for example), so excess disambiguation may just confuse matters. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Royal Navy (disambiguation) created

Per discussions with User:Emoscopes, User:Carom, and User:TomTheHand, a Royal Navy (disambiguation) page has been created. Please take a look at the page and fill in anything I missed. Also, at the suggestion of JonEastham, I added a {{Otheruses4}} dab link to the top of each Royal Navy page (however I have no doubt that fiefdom issues will see the link reverted off of half the articles within a week). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong. Of the 18 articles I added the dab link to, it was only reverted off of two: Royal Thai Navy and Swedish Navy. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Is there any WP:Ships guidance on trivia / fiction sections in articles? I recently looked at USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) and removed some non-notable cartoon trivia, but it has been re-added. Is there any reason to include fictional or trivial cartoon information about ships that were not even completed? --Dual Freq 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that because the articles are so short, and because the ships were featured prominently in one of the most popular anime series ever, a brief note like the one inserted by John Broughton (talk · contribs) [here] is appropriate. I agree that the original text included inappopriate original research but I think the shortened one is fine. TomTheHand 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I must have missed the boat on the 26 episode series mentioned, either that or I was on a boat that didn't have normal TV at that time. Either way I'd never heard of the cartoon in question. I also failed to see the prominence of a single episode appearance regardless of the series. I guess what is there now doesn't offend me terribly. Maybe I'm just not a fan of trivia sections in general. I know the WP:Aircraft folks have a pseudo-policy for inclusion of trivia limiting video games that include the aircraft and other details. I just wondered if there was a similar negotiated / discussed guideline for those sections here. --Dual Freq 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of on the fence about it, but I think the Evangelion reference is way more notable than this gem from USS Iowa (BB-61): "Tom Clancy is seen wearing the baseball cap of the Iowa in his photograph gracing the back of certain of his paperback novels." As far as I know Evangelion has never aired on American TV, as it's rather bloody and contains adult themes. You'd have to be into anime to have seen it, but if you're into anime you've almost certainly seen it—it's the first thing someone shows you after you caught Cowboy Bebop late night on the Cartoon Network and kinda liked it. TomTheHand 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That is pretty obscure. (Checking the Clancy books I have, he isn't wearing a hat in any of them) Assuming it is true, it certainly isn't worth wasting a sentence on. That's the kind of stuff that gets added to pop culture / trivia sections, next thing you know there will be a dozen bullet points detailing each scene the ship was in for a couple frames of a movie. I think the WP:A/C guideline is that it has to be a central character in the movie/show like the F-14 is to Top Gun, F-16 to Iron Eagle or USS Missouri to Under Siege. The aircraft problem is a bit different since folks want to add every console game that includes the F-14 to the F-14 article. I think they decided just to list flight sims specifically focusing on the aircraft to keep the pop culture sections smaller. --Dual Freq 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Evagelion did in fact air in America earlier this year, as part of the anime block for Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim lineup. It was shortly after the episode aired that the first apperance of the evegelion reference with regards to the last two Iowa class battleships popped up on the page. The notability of the event is that the battleships became the 1st non-evongelion machines to have directly destroyed an angel; if you see the anime series you know that this instance and the instance in which Iruel overtakes nerv HQ are the only two times in the series when angels are not destroyed by evas. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

List of shipbuilders and shipyards

In response to a suggestion of Emoscopes, I've created a sub page of WP:SHIP. It's probably in the wrong place, but it's up now anyway. The important thing is to attempt to differentiate between the various yards and companies, as when some people think of the company, they believe that the name and the history automatically applies to their shipyard, not realising that there are often multiple yards. Anyone who can add to it, please do so. If the format is a bit difficult, then say so and I'll change it. I only did it as a personal experiment during the summer which has languished for some time. --Harlsbottom 11:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not create sub pages with titles like that. But in any case it looked like a perfectly good start for an article in (Main) so I have moved it to List of shipbuilders and shipyards. -- RHaworth 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. --Harlsbottom 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability criteria

What are the notability criteria for any given ship's inclusion? Are ships subject to general WP:N, or are they all considered inherently notable (as it is the case with geographic locations), or do you folks have some other specific criteria?

I am particularly interested whether a cargo ship described at Talk:Sinegorye#Discussion about the recent "copyed/expa" edit would qualify for a separate article. Assistance would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that every military ship is notable enough to warrant it's own article. I am particularly interested to hear what others have to say. Very good question. --JAYMEDINC 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just want to emphasize that the ship in question is not a military one; it's just a cargo ship.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Drebbel's submarine on Template:Groundbreaking submarines

I'd like to ask some folks from here to head over to Template:Groundbreaking submarines and comment on the issue of what flag should be placed by Drebbel's submarine: a Dutch flag, because Drebbel was Dutch, an English flag, because he was living in England as a patron of the throne and built his submarine for the Royal Navy, or both flags together. TomTheHand 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template expert in the house?

A few months ago we discussed how we could give Template:Infobox Ship some customizability. For example, it would help to be able to have multiple commission and decommission dates for ships with several periods of service. For ships that had a big refit, it'd be nice to be able to have "before" and "after" sections of the template. For ships that saw service in multiple navies, we could have separate service sections for each one, with appropriate flags.

Anyway, J Clear said that he'd had exactly the same idea, and he'd done some work on it. His work can be found here. As you can see, it allows multiple complete infoboxes in one box. He said that he could finish it up quickly if there was demand, but he has been on Wikibreak for some time now.

I'm interested in this user box. I have a couple ships that I would use it on. Although, I really need to take a Wikibreak myself. Not easy to pull away though. --JAYMEDINC 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing to ask if there are any template experts who might be able to finish it up. What I'd like to see is the ability to hide anything. For example, I'd like to be able to do this:

first infobox
  • Image
  • Career
  • General characteristics
second infobox
  • (hidden image)
  • (hidden career)
  • Second General characteristics, to show characteristics after a huge refit/reconstruction

Or:

first infobox
  • Image
  • Career
  • (hidden General characteristics)
second infobox
  • (hidden image)
  • Second Career, to indicate service in another navy
  • General characteristics

Does anyone have the template knowledge to make this happen? I had a lot of trouble with it. TomTheHand 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty easy to implement (if somewhat time-consuming); I could probably do it sometime in the next few days. Might I suggest a more modern appearance for the infobox as a whole, though? Plain lined tables fell out of favor some time ago. (Shameless plug: how about adopting WPMILHIST's infobox design?) Kirill Lokshin 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha. I don't really have an eye for that sort of thing, but I think WPMILHIST's infobox design does look quite nice, and I think uniformity with WPMILHIST's style might be nice, as most of our articles are about warships. TomTheHand 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I might be figuring something out at User:TomTheHand/Infobox Ship using switch statements but it's really ugly. TomTheHand 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would finally click for me after I get desperate and start asking people for help. I'm making some progress which I'll post here soon, but it would be really nice if we could collaborate on making the template prettier and adding more functionality if we can think of anything. TomTheHand 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the capabilities I wanted to the template, but if anyone can make it look better or anything, the help would be greatly appreciated. Here's a rundown of the new features:

  1. No rows are automatically displayed any more. This is less a feature than a side effect, but I was not a big fan of the automatic "Unknowns" anyway. To me, "Unknown" is appropriate for, say, the draft of Noah's Ark. It is not appropriate in situations where the article author just didn't have the information on hand.
  2. Attribute "Hide image", which hides the whole image/caption section if set to yes.
  3. Attribute "Hide career", which hides the Career/flag bar if set to yes.
  4. Attribute "Hide characteristics", which hides the General Characteristics bar if set to yes.
  5. Attribute "Ship multiuse", which controls the whole stacking of multiple infoboxes. By default things will work as before. If you'd like to stack two infoboxes, then in the first one have a "Ship multiuse=begin" and in the second have a "Ship multiuse=end". The begin will open the infobox, but not close it, and the end will close it. If you'd like to stack three or more, start with a "Ship multiuse=begin", have any number of "Ship multiuse=middle" and then close with a "Ship multiuse=end".

I'll work up some examples and post a link to them in a little while. I think a hefty tutorial would be in order. TomTheHand 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bleh. The coding isn't intuitive at all (and, somewhat more practically, will be horribly broken if/when Brion finally switches on the extension that prevents tables from spilling over between template invocations). The real way to code hideable sections is through the parameters themselves (as in, e.g. {{Infobox Military Award}}); in your case, you'd also want a sub-template for an internal table that could then be called from the outer template to create arbitrarily stacked collections of the fields without the template user needing to know what was actually being done. Kirill Lokshin 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Damn. Well, I will look at Infobox Military Award shortly and see what I can do. In the meantime, I applied the infobox to USS Tilefish (SS-307) to see how it works. I won't do any others until I get the situation improved. TomTheHand 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked things over, and thought about it for a few hours, and I believe I understand what you're saying. However, I don't see how to make it work without breaking old uses of the Infobox. Should we start from scratch? Do you think it can be made to work without breaking anything? TomTheHand 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In theory, I think so; but, as the new infobox would have a bunch of additional parameter anyways (to generate the secondary tables), it may just be easier to start from scratch and convert the existing infoboxes with AWB once the new one is developed and tested. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It'll never end! I've been converting ship infoboxes from tables to the Infobox Ship template for the past few months, and now we're going to have a whole new template to convert to! ;-)
Just to get an idea of what you're suggesting, do you think you could provide an example of how your idea would be called from a ship article? No code or anything, just an idea of how such a template would be used. Something very simplified with just a couple of attributes, like this:
{{Infobox Ship|
|Ship commissioned
|Ship length
|}}
How do you think an editor should be able to specify multiple commission dates? An example would help me understand what you're saying. TomTheHand 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What I had in mind was something like this:
{{Infobox Ship
|commissioned= 1932
|commissioned2= 1971
|length= 500m
|tonnage= 10,000
|tonnage2= 16,000
..
}}
The basic idea being that the various "incarnations" of the ship would be identified by a number that would be appended to the names of the related parameters. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Would that support an arbitrary number of commission dates, or would we need to add code for each commissioning? Also, how would you handle a ship that commissions, decommissions, commissions again, and then is sold to another navy and commissioned there? I would sort of like to be able to have another Career heading before the second career. Just trying to play devil's advocate and iron out the details. TomTheHand 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Each set of parameters would need to be coded explicitly in the template; but we can start off with a large number (10?) that should be sufficient for just about anything.
As far as the headings and so forth: it was my understanding that each "commissionedX" field would be for a single "block" of career data. In other words, the example above would have two "Career" sections. If a ship goes through a series of comissionings in a single navy, on the other hand, the dates would just be listed in a single field (e.g. "|commissioned= 1932, 1957", "|decomissioned= 1945").
(The only real drawback of this would be that the order of career changes and refits wouldn't be variable; so the infobox would list all the career data, followed by all the ship technical data. This might be somewhat counterintuitive for ships that experience both major refits and changes between navies; but hopefully those are quite rare.) Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. So if a ship commissioned several times in a single navy, each commission date would be in a single row? I'd sort of like to be able to have a commission date, then a decommission date, then a recommission date, so that the template would list things in chronological order. That's why I liked the stackable infobox solution; if it weren't doomed to break in the future I'd prefer to stick with it. Though the code may be ugly, it can be cleaned up some, and the actual usage of it isn't all that bad. Perhaps each Career heading could be hideable, so you could have your Career 1, then a Career 2 with its heading hidden, which would look like an extension of Career 1, then you could have a Career 3 with its heading intact indicating service in another navy. TomTheHand 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Another feature I'd like to add is the ability to have some sort of an optional caption or qualifier for General Characteristics. For example, I'd like to be able to have General Characteristics (1943) and General Characteristics (1981), to specify characteristics at two different time periods. TomTheHand 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about having the template user paste in the opening and closing of the table, and in the middle the user could make as many calls as needed to Ship Image, Ship Career, or Ship Characteristics templates? It would require starting over instead of continuing to use Infobox Ship, but I don't think it would be harder to use. TomTheHand 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, you may as well do it inside the template; just have a parameter (e.g. tabletype1, tabletype2, etc.) that indicates which sub-table to transclude for each set of parameters. Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure that I understand. When you say "do that," what do you mean? Do you mean the opening and closing of the table? If so, I thought that opening a table in one template and closing it in another will eventually break. If I misunderstood that, let me know. If you mean calling sub-templates, how would you pass multiple commission dates into the main template? By numbering them? How is that better? TomTheHand 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it will eventually break; but this doesn't do that. The main advantage here is that the editors using the infobox in the template don't need to concern themselves with how it's implemented. For example, the article could contain:
{{Infobox Ship
|tabletype1= career
|navy1= US
|commissioned1= 1932
|decommissioned1= 1945
|tabletype2= career
|commissioned2= 1953
|tabletype3= technical
|length3= 500m
|tonnage3= 10,000
|tabletype4= career
|navy4= Royal Navy
|commissioned4= 1971
...
}}
while the template itself would be something like:
...
|-
{{#switch:{{{tabletype1|}}}
|career= {{/Career|navy={{{navy1|}}}|commissioned={{{commissioned1|}}}|decommissioned={{{decommissioned1|}}}|...}}
|technical= {{/Technical|length={{{length1|}}}|tonnage={{{tonnage1|}}}|...}}
}}
|-
{{#switch:{{{tabletype2|}}}
|career= {{/Career|navy={{{navy2|}}}|commissioned={{{commissioned2|}}}|decommissioned={{{decommissioned2|}}}|...}}
|technical= {{/Technical|length={{{length2|}}}|tonnage={{{tonnage2|}}}|...}}
}}
|-
{{#switch:{{{tabletype3|}}}
|career= {{/Career|navy={{{navy3|}}}|commissioned={{{commissioned3|}}}|decommissioned={{{decommissioned3|}}}|...}}
|technical= {{/Technical|length={{{length3|}}}|tonnage={{{tonnage3|}}}|...}}
}}
|-
...
Does that make any sense? Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. Do any other WP:SHIPS members (or MILHIST folks) have opinions on how the template should work? I am not a huge fan of the numbering solution but I can certainly work with it if others feel we should go that way. I mean, it seems cleaner to me to have something like this:

{| // open table
{{Infobox Ship Header}} // this configures table color, width, etc
{{Infobox Ship Image
|image=
|caption=
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
|hideheader= // hides the "Career" bar so that multiple commission/decommission dates can be listed in the same career area
|commissioned=
|decommissioned=
}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics
|hideheader= // hides the "General Characteristics" bar
|displacement=
|length=
}}
} // close table

Would it work? I don't think that having the template user open and close the table is messy, and I think a numberless solution is less confusing. TomTheHand 16:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling this WikiProject died while I wasn't looking ;-) C'mon, guys! The ship infobox affects tons of people. How do you want it to work? TomTheHand 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My version of a complicated table

Following up on my earlier suggestion, here's a rough implementation:

IIH
Career
Launched 1999
Launched 1888
Career (Turkey) flag of Turkey
Launched 1777
General Characteristics
Armament 3
EW 3
General Characteristics
Length 3 
 {{Wwoods/complicated ship table begin
 | Ship image = Image:IIH.png
 | width = 222px
 | Alt text = IIH
 }}
 {{Wwoods/complicated ship table career
 | Ship flag = Image:IIH.png 
 | Ship launched = 1999
 }}
 {{Wwoods/complicated ship table career
 | Ship launched = 1888
 }} 
 {{Wwoods/complicated ship table career
 | Ship country = Turkey
 | Ship flag = Image:Flag of Turkey.svg
 | Ship flag width = 60px
 | Ship flag name = flag of Turkey
 | Ship launched = 1777
 }}
 {{wwoods/complicated ship table characteristics
 | Ship armament= 3
 }}
 {{wwoods/complicated ship table characteristics
 | no header = yes
 | Ship EW= 3
 }}
 {{wwoods/complicated ship table characteristics
 | Ship length = 3
 }}
 {{Wwoods/complicated ship table end}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwoods (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 December 2006

That's a lot like what I implemented. Check out User:TomTheHand/test. Sorry, I didn't credit you properly; you originally came up with the idea of using multiple separate templates and it sat in my head so that when I implemented something I thought it was my idea ;-) Anyway, there is a problem with the above template. Kirill says that opening a table in one template and closing it in another will eventually be broken. In my implementation, technically the editor pasting the infobox in opens and closes it, so I believe it will still work. TomTheHand 14:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh. If the sections are separate tables, how does the formatting and alignment carry over from one to the next?
—wwoods 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
They're all one table, but the editor has to open and close the table. The opening and closing can't occur in separate templates. TomTheHand 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Backward Compatibility of the infobox

I'm having a bit of trouble following the infobox discussion, but I think that changes to the current template should not require modification of the 1200+ articles that already include Template:Infobox Ship. Meaning "Ship commissioned" shouldn't be required to be changed to "Ship commissioned1" to remain compatible. I don't know how to solve the multi-navy commissioning issue, but I think any modification shouldn't require a 1200 article bot run to bring the existing articles into compliance with the template. Maybe a couple sample articles could be made in user-space or project ships-space to illustrate the various options. USS Wisconsin (BB-64) uses the infobox and was commissioned 3 times by the USN, it could be used as an example in user space. ROCS Kee Lung (DDG-1801) and USS Scott (DDG-995) are the same hull, maybe an example that merges them using one infobox. The holidays will prevent me from participating very much for the next several days so I may not respond promptly. --Dual Freq 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a separate infobox for ships that have to support multiple commission periods, etc. Ships that don't require it can just use the old infobox. It's unfortunate that J Clear's solution will break in the future, because it was fully backwards compatible. TomTheHand 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
To expand a little on my above point, I think Kirill's idea (involving Ship commissioned2, Ship commissioned3, etc) could be made to be backwards compatible. Rather than having a Ship commissioned1, the very first commissioned date could just be "Ship commissioned" and later dates could be numbered. However, I think that if we started from scratch, we could put together something that's cleaner and easier to use than tacking on additional functionality to the old infobox. We could start using the new one from now on, or only use it in special cases like multiple commission periods.
I put together a demo of my idea of building an infobox out of separate image, career, and characteristics sections. Please check it out at User:TomTheHand/test. TomTheHand 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two odd issues with that demo. First, there's a "|-" floating around near one of the example infoboxes, and I don't know where the heck it came from ;-) Second, the table borders don't show up in the example in my userspace, but when I preview it in the article mainspace the borders show up fine. I'm not trying to put this into articles, don't worry, but I tried previewing an article in the mainspace to troubleshoot the missing border issue. TomTheHand 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear my solution is going to break sometime in the future. Somebody better tell the folks of in the astronomy project, where I ... er, um, "borrowed" the idea from. At least I think it was over there. Assuming we go with a sub template invocation style, I recommend that the first set of data/formatting/sub-templates always be included in the parent template, and it's parameters do not have 1 appended. This will go a long way toward backward compatability. --J Clear 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Not quite back from wikibreak yet, just a few edits here and there. Can't bear to look at my watch list yet.)
Unfortunately my above demo is completely backwards-incompatible ;-) I think it's easier to use than numbering, but if it were to be used it would have to be a completely separate template from Infobox Ship, either as a replacement or supplement. TomTheHand 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision time!

Ok, let's decide what we're going to do with this infobox situation!

wwoods and I have proposed starting over with a new infobox, which the editor would construct out of several different templates. I have a working prototype that I'm pretty happy with which you can view at User:TomTheHand/test. It's got an example of the code you'd paste in and a little bit of stuff describing how to use it. It's pretty straightforward; please have a look!

Kirill Lokshin has proposed a series of modifications to the old infobox which would retain backwards compatibility but allow multiple commission dates, etc. Its invocation would look like this:

{{Infobox Ship
|tabletype1= career
|navy1= US
|commissioned1= 1932
|decommissioned1= 1945
|tabletype2= career
|commissioned2= 1953
|tabletype3= technical
|length3= 500m
|tonnage3= 10,000
|tabletype4= career
|navy4= Royal Navy
|commissioned4= 1971
...
}}

For backwards compatibility, rather than commissioned1, decommissioned1, etc it would accept "commissioned" and "decommissioned." There's no prototype yet, and coding it while maintaining backwards compatibility is a little beyond me, but it's definitely possible.

If possible, please toss in your two cents. As I said, I favor starting over with a new template, and the above prototype is ready to move to the Template space if there are no objections. However, if there is strong opposition and someone's up for coding the alternative, please post and let us all know so I can hold off! TomTheHand 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It all looks very good to me. One thing that I think is still needed though, from the point of view of captured ships, is a name field. Navies often gave captured ships new names so this should be accounted for in this somewhere... Martocticvs 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. That'd be a piece of cake to add. So you're thinking a Name field as the first row in the Career box? Or what/where? TomTheHand 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds good to me. It would only be needed for captured ships or ships that have changed hands and had their names changed... on any other ship article the name field should go away as it would be superfluous. Martocticvs 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. I put it just after the row for Class. It'll actually be useful on a large number of ships. After World War II, especially, many surplus ships were sold to other navies and renamed. I had never thought of putting the additional names in the infobox before. TomTheHand 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing some articles with prototype templates in place, before I vote. One experiment I've tried is to create a class template (I class destroyer) for "general description" which can then be reused for each ship of the class. There's some obvious drawbacks (eg, when one ship is "non-standard"), but it is handy and not complex. A computing motto is "keep it simple, stupid!". Folks at 137 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to check out User:TomTheHand/test? There are three example uses on that page: a ship that had careers with two separate navies, a ship that had two periods in commission, and USS Enterprise's infobox rendered in the new template to show that it looks the same. The first two examples are not exactly correct, as I simplified some of their content to make them take up less space (note armament of "big guns" or "little guns" ;-)) but they should give you an idea. If there's anything else you'd like to see demonstrated, tell me what and I'll do it. TomTheHand 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - I'd skipped thru the techie discussion and must have missed it. I'll have to have a play to get used to them, but I like the appearance and the alternative US/ British usages. Ease of use will count for me - it looks ok on that score. I don't know how you have the time to bash this stuff thru - no job? no kids? Thanks, anyway. Folks at 137 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the concept and the enhancements for multi-flagged and multi-commissioned ships, but my number 1 concern is backward compatibility so that the 1200+ articles that use the infobox don't have to be re-done. Could this template / concept be Template:Infobox Ship 2 and only used when the editor choses it / or only used in the case of multi-flagged ships or other items not supported by the current infobox? If the additions can be done without wrecking the other articles then I think I'd support it. --Dual Freq 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with using this template separately, under a different name, and having Infobox Ship remain as it is. Currently it uses the names "Infobox Ship Header", "Infobox Ship Image", "Infobox Ship Career", and "Infobox Ship Characteristics", so the names are already different. However, if the similarity of the names is going to be a problem too I can use a different name. I want the names to be very simple, though, and would appreciate suggestions if they need to be changed. TomTheHand 13:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern with Tom's template is that the table open and close is outside any template. This was probably driven by the coming change where a table can't span multiple templates. However it should be possible for the table open/close to be inside the single parent template, then include one or many sub-template[s] for every ship change. The parent template would substitute the numbered parameters into the generic unnumbered parameters used in the generic sub-template(s). In fact a single sub-template would look a lot like the current Infobox, except with the ability to default hide everything. I think Toms "Hide" parameter should be eliminated with suitable use of logic in the sub template. Tom'sWwood's use of different sub templates for the different blocks has the advantage of breaking the code up into smaller modules, a plus for maintenance. But the decision to include a block could be make with logic in the parent template. I'm pretty sure we could keep backward compatability that way. I'll try to put together a mock up of this is in the next day or two, but I'm not sure what the rush is. --J Clear 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Above, Kirill suggested what you've said: there should be a parent template that does the opening and closing, with calls to subtemplates, and extra dates and characteristics would be supported by numbering. However, I don't like the numbering solution. I don't see opening and closing the table outside any template as being a huge problem. It's a little easier to break, but someone who doesn't copy and paste properly is going to have a messed up infobox anyway. Backwards compatibility could be maintained with numbering, but I think it would be at the expense of having an easy-to-use, clean design. Could you provide an example of how your template would be invoked, similar to what Kirill and I were posting above, including how you would eliminate the Hide parameters but still provide the same functionality? Would you be willing to code the template, if we go that way? TomTheHand 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost hesitant to post this since it contains many unimplemented items, especially complete hiding of unused parameters. So concentrate on how the template call would look to the editor, not the resulting infobox yet. The example/proof of concept is here. --J Clear 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
As to the Hide parameter, you basically don't want the header or image/caption to show up so you do it the same way as any other row of data. If the Ship Image paramter isn't defined, don't display it's row or the caption row. I added it to the example above. The Career and General headers might be more subtle. I guess the question is how consistent do we want to be. Take USS Missouri (BB-63) as an example. Do we want one Career header followed by two sets of dates, then one General header with two armament rows, or do we want to force Career/General/Career/General headers? Hmm, actually that's a slightly different question than hiding/not hiding, it has to do with being able to order sections. If we give the editors the flexibility to include Career and General sub-templates on their own, we will end up with different ordering. --J Clear 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In my above solution, there's no hide image. The image and caption areas don't show up if no image or caption are specified. Career and General Characteristics have hide capability for the reason you've stated: to allow an editor to decide whether or not it is appropriate to display the header. For Missouri, we'd have all of the dates under one Career header by using hidden Career headers. For a ship that was sold to a different navy, we'd have one Career header for one navy's commission period, and then another Career header for the other navy's. I think it's important to be able to both hide and display the headers.
Again for Missouri, you could have one Career header, a career with several commission and decommission dates, one Characteristics header, and characteristics with two different armaments rows. For a ship that was bought by another navy and extensively refitted, you could have a Career for one navy, Characteristics for that navy, a second Career for the other navy, and then Characteristics for the other navy, if desired.
Doing it with separate templates is very flexible, but I also think it's easy to understand and use and there's no heavy coding. TomTheHand 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to move my template into the Template space in the next day or two and start using it. J Clear said above, "I'm not sure what the rush is," but this discussion has been going on for two months with nothing really happening. I think the separate template solution solves everything I wanted it to solve, so I'm going to start using it. TomTheHand 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the template to the Template space and posted it at our page of tables. The first ship I used it on was USS Bang (SS-385), which I think has benefitted nicely from it. TomTheHand 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great job with that! I'll start using it staight away. I've just been struck with another thought though - is it possible to add another line to the template? Ships of the age of sail were not measured by displacement, but rather tons burthen. Having been happily putting weights in the displacement field for a while I've only just realised the significance of the difference... Martocticvs 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Done! The variable is called "Ship tons burthen" and it's been added to the copy-and-paste code on our page of tables and whatnot. I'm thinking of adding a row for tonnage as well, as cargo ships are generally rated that way. Should it just say "Tonnage" or what? TomTheHand 18:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! As for cargo ship tonnage, I would be inclined to make that a separate entry, as Tons Burthen is the term you always see with the old ships, and I'm not sure how that equates with more modern measuring methods. I know that there were several different methods of measuring a ship's tonnage back in the day, so there is already some confusion! Martocticvs 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of adding an additional entirely separate row for "tonnage". I'm thinking that it will just say "Tonnage:" and the editor can specify exactly what kind of tonnage is meant in the data field: "Tonnage: 5,000 gross tons" or "Tonnage: 4,000 register tons". TomTheHand 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Navsource Amphib shuffle

If you've put links to Navsource for a Gator ship, they will porbably break in 2007. See message about a site reorg here http://www.navsource.org/archives/phibidx.htm. --J Clear 16:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up on dablink formatting change

This caught me by surprise, so I wanted to give everyone else in the project a heads-up as we often use these templates in our articles. The visual formatting in the various dablink templates was recently moved to CSS. If you have not bypassed your cache, dablinks like {{redirect}} at the top of Royal Australian Navy or {{Otheruses1}} at the top of Royal Navy will appear to have lost their indent and italic text. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disambig link formatting for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian maritime history (was: Greetings/New Years and otherwise)

Just to inform that a new maritime history project has started for Australia - Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian maritime history -SatuSuro 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there wikipedia guidelines on what to do when articles "belong" to multiple projects and the projects have conflicting formatting and content guidelines? Also which project tag takes precedence on a Talk page? I see many Wikiproject Ships articles overlapping with MILHIST, this new group, and I'm sure there are others. --J Clear 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies a very tricky issue - with such a specific task but particularly open sounding title - perhaps this project and the military projects need to review exactly what they are doing? in the Australian context - Australian Military History, Australian History and the Australian Military History do speak to each other and attempt to remain under the umbrellea of the Australian project - and its guidelines and assessment criteria - so as to avoid problems whereever possible SatuSuro 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh and as to precedence - it depends on the projects to actually nut this out on the project talk pages - have a vote - and initiate policy that will clarify this - I do not know pf any other way - thats why we're sort of ok in the Australian sense- we have a parent project with some very well heeled admins watching! SatuSuro 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)