Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6

File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg - Wikipedia

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6

Imperial Japanese Navy naming question

A user (Pogo935 (talk · contribs)) has recently created a page for the WWII era Japanese Akizuki class destroyers in order to disambiguate it from a more modern Akizuki class used by the Japanese Self-Defense Force. This seems reasonable, and was important as there were links that meant the older class that were being sent to the newer one. I'm not sure if there is a precedent or naming guideline in that case. However, the category name he used for the old class he changed to "IJN Akizuki class destroyers". As far as I know, "IJN" or "HIJNS" or whatever are apocryphal and not to be used as tites (hence "Japanese destroyer Akizuki" rather than "IJN Akizuki"). Am I correct in thinking this? If so, how should the category be renamed? Is there any sort of precedent for this (two like-named classes)? - Nakamura2828 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is precedent for duplicate class names; we have used a (year) to disambiguate. I'm drawing a blank as to specific examples, but there are several. You are correct about our (non)usage of IJN and HIJNS--Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships is the convention, and Category:Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy demonstrates usage. Maralia 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which year is supposed to be used? The date the first ship in the class was ordered, laid-down, launched, or commissioned, or the year the schematics were drawn up for the class (is it even possible to find this)?. - Nakamura2828 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The year that the first ship in the class was launched should be used. See King George V class battleship for an example of this in action. TomTheHand 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so "Akizuki class destroyer (Imperial Japanese Navy)" --> "Akizuki class destroyer (1942)". I'll start moving things - Nakamura2828 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nakamura! If you need any help (for example, if any moves are obstructed and need to be handled by an admin), let us know. TomTheHand 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6

Existing Dab-class assessment fully enabled in project banner

As noted before [1], when assessing articles, I like to also add in the banners of any other relevant WikiProjects. While reviewing the assessment instructions for {{WikiProject France}}, I noticed that this project included a Dab or Disambig class for use on disambiguation pages. Intrigued, I tried plugging "class = dab" into our banner and was surprised to see that it worked (however it did not have an associated category). Since our project literally has thousands of disambiguation pages, in a fit of BOLDness, I went ahead and fully enabled this 'hidden' feature by creating Category:Disambig-Class Ships articles and linking it in to the {{WikiProject Ships}} parser. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Prefix for Chilean ships?

Melromero (talk · contribs) has been moving Chilean ships from Chilean (ship type) (ship name) to CNS (ship name. I don't think this prefix is actually used by the Chilean Navy. I asked him about this, and he hasn't responded yet, but an anon mentioned that the Chilean equivalent of the Hull classification symbol and hull number precede the ship name. See here. What do you guys think about the naming of these articles? I think the CNS (ship name) is definitely incorrect and would need to see reliable sources showing otherwise. The Chilean Navy's web site doesn't use it at all. However, should we be using the format (Hull classification symbol)-(Hull number) (ship name)? TomTheHand 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of re-igniting the ship naming controversy, I really like the consistency and simplicity of the current two-option system outlined in the ships naming convention:

PREFIX CODE USED BY THAT NAVY Ship Name (applicable Pennant number, Hull number, or launch year)
- ARA General Belgrano
- HMS Dreadnought (1906)
- USS Long Beach (CGN-9)
National operator ship type Ship Name (applicable Pennant number, Hull number, or launch year)
- Japanese cruiser Asama
- French cruiser Colbert (1928)
- Greek destroyer Kountouriotis (D 99)

Given the lack of evidence for CNS, I would rate it with IJN, USSRS, and the rest: nice ideas (and you know how I love consistency), but not truly accurate. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. CNS appears made-up, and assuming that that is true, it should not be used. However, the big questions are these: does the Chilean navy actually prefix their ships with hull classification numbers (for example, FF-05 Almirante Cochrane or LM-31 Chipana), as implied by this page and this anonymous post and if so, should that be our naming convention for their ships? TomTheHand 23:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was not more clear in my previous post; I feel we should stick with the existing system and not put hull classification numbers before the name on Chilean naval ships. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Spanish language Wikipedia, it appears that neither CNS nor hull classification numbers are used to prefix ships names in the Chilean Navy:

es:Fragata Almirante Cochrane FF-05
es:Acorazado Almirante Latorre
es:Fragatas Leander en la Armada Chilena
es:Torpedero Almirante Lynch

Now it appears that we need to go and revert a bunch of these changes. Even good intentioned WP:OR is still WP:OR. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What I was iffy on was exactly how our article naming rules apply. It seemed to me that if the Chilean Navy prefixed its ship names with a hull classification number, that might fall under our same rule that covers USS and HMS. I didn't exactly like that, but it seems to me that if a country writes its ship names in a specific format, we should respect that.

However, if the Chilean Navy doesn't' prefix their ship names with the classification symbol, it's a moot point and we need to move these articles back to Chilean (ship type) (name). TomTheHand 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Costa Pacifica departing Tallinn 29 May 2012.JPG - Wikimedia ...

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Requesting photographs

I have created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of ships. To add a ship to the list add to the talk page of the article {{reqphoto|ships}}. If the ship is mainly found in one country add a second option |in=location. Traveler100 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks!! (Maralia will not be surprised to know that in addition to adding tags for multiple WikiProjects, when I do an article assessment, I also add things like this requested photo template too!) --Kralizec! (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are the kind of guy I'd love to have do my taxes - and hate to have audit them. Maralia 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

DANFS copies

There are articles on USN ships that are substantially or entirely copies from DANFS eg, USS Manila Bay (CVE-61). Not a copyright issue since, I believe, these are public domain. They also provide a quick way of providing an article. BUT, to me, these read like mud - badly organised officialese. Is this because I'm a Brit and these are good examples of US English or are they bad on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific)? If the latter, then they deserve clean-up tags. Folks at 137 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In general I think that article reads okay; I agree that it tends toward militarese and could be improved, but I'm not sure where you get 'badly organised'. If I were browsing and saw that article with a {{cleanup}} tag on it, I would probably remove the tag, as a cleanup tag to me means issues of grammar, spelling, structure, wikification, tone, etc and I don't see any of those problems in the article. Perhaps you meant a more specific cleanup tag rather than the general one, but that article is fairly representative of the better (but not best) USN ship articles here, so I'm at a loss to understand.

I'm not arguing your point, though; I do spend most of my time here reading ship articles, and I'm American, so maybe I can't see the forest for the trees. Care to elaborate on the problems you see? Maralia 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I start from the point of view of an interested but uninformed reader. In general, the article is strong on close detail, but does not interprete it. I don't have a great knowledge of the Pacific War, so I find it difficult to place each action in its context. "Summary" is anything but. Including its sub-headings, it's a detailed account of the ship's actions. Was the ship a transport, an attack carrier, a fleet escort, an ASW unit? These ships (at least in the Royal Navy) were all of these, but ships would specialise as needed. A summary could tell me this, describe the operations/ theatres that were involved and the outcomes. Separate detailed descriptions could be retained, no point in losing the detail. From were I stand as a non-American civilian with only an outline of the Pacific War, I would say that there are issues of structure, tone and readability. These have deterred me from close examination of this particular article, but in articles that have touched on areas away from the US or USN, there have been weaknesses (understandable given the focus of DANFS). Perhaps I'm wrong, it will be interesting to get more feedback. Folks at 137 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't in accordance with MOS is it? It has one sentence in its opening paragraph, whereas this should give a summary of what the article is about. The whole of the rest of the article (with the exception of the references) is under a heading of overview, so this heading isn't adding anything. I'd say a clean-up tag was warranted. Without getting really into the article, I can't tell if the first part of overview (before the New Guinea heading) is an overview of the history - but it appears not, as this seems to go as far as New Guinea. I don't have a problem with the style. It isn't a style I would have adopted, but that is personal, not whether or not its a good style, but I'd say that the structure needs attention Viv Hamilton 08:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Flag templates

I noticed a bunch of articles edited by User:Malo today, which he changed from using {{USN flag}} to {{USN jack}}, a new template he apparently made today. I'm baffled - I thought we had a clear consensus, for months now at least, to use flags (ensigns) rather than jacks. Am I nuts, or did I miss a conversation? Maralia 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that most definitely should not be happening. I've redirected {{USN jack}} to {{USN flag}}. TomTheHand 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Malo might not be aware of the consensus: he may believe he's done the right thing. Perhaps a word from a kindly person ... Folks at 137 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. I hadn't been very active until the past few days, and I didn't know. I appreciate TomTheHand leaving a message on my talk page and taking the time to find me the talk page archive with the consensus in it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive05#Always_use_ensigns.3F. I'm not trying to be counter productive, however I don't agree with the consensus. Having now caught up on some reading, I agree with what J Clear said a year ago in regards to the jack being a better indicator because you can better see the number of stars on USN jacks, but then also because the jack not only indicates the nation, but more specifically the branch of service. Whereas the ensign (when displayed at about 48px or 60px on most articles as is common) for USN ships from 1818 is nearly indistinguishable from one from 1958. Granted this may not make a whole lot of difference for some, but it's bugging me. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that differences between jacks are more visible, I feel using the jack is artificial and not indicative of the flag the ship is usually flying. It generally only flown while the ship is not underway, while the ensign is flown whether underway or not. Moreover, I just don't consider it to be a big advantage that the stars in the jack are bigger. Yes, it's easier to tell the difference between jacks, but since jacks aren't indicative of what the ship usually flies, how is that helpful? TomTheHand 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I rarely (never?) add/edit/remove flags from articles, I have to say that I agree with Malo on this issue. While the naval flags of other nations often changed considerably between eras (compare with ), the evolution of the USN ensign is virtually imperceptible at this size (compare the ensign of the first USS Maine with that of the second USS Maine ). --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

With the Canadian Blue ensign example, just to be difficult, that was actually used as a jack; Dominion and Commonwealth navies flew the white ensign, with the "local" ensign being used as a national identifier and flown as a jack. It was really only Dominion / Commonwealth government service vessels that would use the local flag as the ensign. Therefore, it is possible to say "only use ensigns" and get around it as the ensign was actually being flown as a jack! Emoscopes ^Talk 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, trying to wrap my brain around that makes my head hurt. Did I mention that I rarely if ever add flags to articles? I can admit that the largest reason is because even after reading the relevant articles on jacks/ensigns/etc., I still do not understand the differences and/or when the various flags should be used. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But we can't exactly go and have a different convention for USN from the rest of the world. Well, we can, but it would lead to even more confusion. -- Kjet 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think consistency is an important point. I don't think we should use ensigns for some navies and jacks for others depending on which looks better. We should be applying one rule to all articles. The fact that it's difficult to tell the difference between various US ensigns just doesn't matter to me. I think having the flag that best represents what the ship actually flew all the time is a way higher priority than being able to count the stars. TomTheHand 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, the flag indicates the nation for which the ship operated, and is merely yet another indicator of the era. The decommission date is listed a mere handful of lines below it in the infobox; the lead of an article usually indicates the era in which it operated; and mousing over the flag image (presuming you have a status bar in your browser) shows you the exact number of stars in the ensign/jack. Aren't we splitting hairs here? Maralia 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick with consistency on articles, and use ensigns in all cases. It makes little practical sense to have one rule for one navy and another for all the rest. Martocticvs 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that I am arguing for the use of different rules for different articles. Me, the supreme advocate for The One Simple, Consistent Rule Set. Did the sun stop burning or the laws of gravitation repeal themselves? Perhaps my wife should go buy a lotto ticket. Regardless, I should note that I am willing to recant my heretical objections and return to formation. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with wanting to display the ensign because it is what is flow when a ship is at sea. However I do really want to see the jack as well, even if the jack is only used when a ship is in port. Perhaps we can place both on USN articles. Would anyone else like to see both? It wouldn't be too difficult to change the template to include each one and personally I don't think it would be too intrusive. To me this seems like a fair compromise, particularly since both apply to what is flown from a USN ship. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this achieves. The point of any flag in ship articles is as a visual indication of nationality and period (significant for, eg, 20th century Germany and USSR/ Russia). One's enough and there's opposition to showing flags at all. For flag enthusiasts, perhaps the evolution of ensigns and jacks can be shown in flag and naval articles. Folks at 137 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

failed GA nom under the scope of this project

I have just recently failed Christopher Columbus (whaleback) according to the GA criteria. Just though I'd give this project a head's up. VanTucky ^Talk 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Vasa (ship) for GAC

The article about the Vasa has been nominated for Good Article status. Input and insights or even reviews from members of this project would be very much appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Sinking of japanese cruiser Mikuma 6 june 1942.jpg ...

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Leander class cruiser template

User:Emoscopes recently changed the template for the Leander class cruiser (1931) (which is Template:Leander class cruiser 1931) to show that the Leander class is preceded by the York class cruiser rather than the Emerald class cruiser. He makes a convincing argument for how the Yorks influenced the design of the Leanders, but I feel it runs agains the listing of our cruiser classes as at List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy, where we list our light cruisers together and our heavy cruisers together (the Leanders being light cruisers and the Yorks being heavy cruisers). I think trying to work this concept of design influences, etc, into a template is a bit confusing for the reader, in that in some places they will see that the Leanders were preceded by the Emeralds, and in others that they were preceded by the Yorks. I'm all for discussing in the article how the Leanders developed on from the designs of the Yorks, but in this case I think it's better to KISS and use the templates to simply list the chronological classes of light cruisers without hopping across boundaries to include other ship types. What do people think? And sorry to bore everyone who couldn't give a damn about the chronology of WWII British cruisers. pip pip, Benea 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have always interpreted 'Preceded by' and 'Followed by' to mean the class of the same type of ship that immediately preceded/followed in chronological order, rather than a reference to classes that influenced its design. Maralia 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Subs of the USN often have the same issue. However the class succession has not to date been added to their templates; instead it is listed in the class article's infobox. For example, the Thresher/Permit-class submarine article states it was preceded by the triumvirate of Skipjack-class submarine, USS Triton (SSRN-586), and USS Halibut (SSGN-587). Additionally, the Thresher/Permit-class was succeeded chronologically by both George Washington-class submarine and USS Tullibee (SSN-597), while its successor by type was the Sturgeon-class submarine. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always interpreted the preceded by/followed by the same way Maralia did. If we were to use ships that influenced design, we'd have to put HMS Dreadnought as the "preceded by" for every initial class of dreadnoughts, be they German, French, American, etc. That just doesn't make sense. Parsecboy 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Emoscopes that in many cases it is more logical to specify the predecessor in the evolutionary line, rather than the strict chronological predecessor. U.S. submarines are a great example of a case where I think it's important to use evolution rather than strict chronology; a lot of dead-end experimental designs were produced during the Cold War. Washington/London treaty cruisers are another case. From my U.S.-centric viewpoint, I think it's more logical to list the predecessor of USS Wichita (CA-45), a heavy cruiser, as the Brooklyn class light cruiser (of which she was an 8"-gunned development) than the New Orleans class heavy cruiser. On the other hand, I would list the predecessor of the Cleveland class light cruiser as the Brooklyn class, not Wichita, while the predecessor of the Baltimore class heavy cruisers would be Wichita.

I see no need to list the predecessor of other nations' first dreadnoughts as HMS Dreadnought (1906). Several nations were planning all-big-gun battleships before HMS Dreadnought herself was laid down; they were logical advancements of pre-dreadnought designs and were a long time in coming. Nobody went "z0mg! Drop everything and copy the Brits!" TomTheHand 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I see where Tom and Emoscopes are coming from on this, and I do think it's a very worthwhile exercise to make sure that these points are clarified in each relevant article. But I think it could confuse the average reader and hinder accessability in that it opens up a wide range of specialist viewpoints as to which developments can be traced from one class to another, where one branch of evolution died out and another begun, etc. For the templates I think it is logical to adopt a standardised view on listing by type (light cruisers seperate from heavy cruisers seperate from battlecruisers seperate from armoured cruisers seperate from second class cruisers etc). In a lot of cases, developments were going on concurrently so I worry that we're making things very confusing and argument prone for ourselves, as well as confusing for our readers. The best way seems to list chronologically within a defined type (light cruisers, heavy, protected, etc) (i.e very little room for argument or error and easily understandable for the average reader) and then go on to describe design influences, etc in the articles themselves. Benea 18:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

i.e. this would give the result - 'the next class of light cruiser to enter service with the Royal Navy was the Leander.' On reading that article I see that 'ah ha, it borrowed much from the designs of the york class heavy cruiser'. And so on. I just don't think the template is the place to try and work in these complicated concepts, when there is no scope there for explaining them. Benea 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see how problems could arise from doing things as I suggest, but at the same time, I kind of feel like relying on strict chronological order is a bit like saying the F-15 Eagle is the predecessor of the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It isn't just a matter of chronology or numbering, but of purpose and design evolution. I think it helps a casual reader more to be able to click through predecessors and successors and see the story of how ships developed, rather than giving people the impression that the Cleveland class came from the Atlantas (which were much smaller and designed for a totally different purpose). TomTheHand 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of presence here as I seem to have kicked this off, but I have been busy with work. My rationale is that the preceded / followed by system should allow us to navigate through a chronology of a certain broad group type of ships; e.g. destroyers, frigates, battleships, cruisers etc. I don't think there is any use, and personally do not think it is very correct, in splitting up cruisers into various treaty categories - to me this just confuses the subject for readers. I think this is particularly pertinent in the Royal Navy, where there are only 2 classes of "heavy cruisers" (that weren't built under that designation, and are better referred to as "treaty cruisers") and where there is a direct evolution and chronology from them into "light cruisers" (York into Leander). Treaty categorisation aside, York is both the evolutionary and chronological predecessor to Leander. Emerald just happens to be the last 6-inch gunned cruiser that was built before Leander, and the only relation is that a later treaty grouped both types as light cruisers. I also think the list of cruisers page would be better served by having the light and heavy cruisers in under a common heading in chronological order, with explanatory notes where necessary. The Royal Navy, for example, fought World War II with WWI-era "light" and "heavy" cruisers, Washington treaty-era cruisers, London conference-era cruisers and post-treaty cruisers. There is a fairly direct line of evolution and chronology from WW1 through to the last British designs which I think is the simplest way to go about it, rather than the arbitrary "light" and "heavy" categories. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, I really do understand where both of you are coming from on this matter, and I think it's a valid point to make. But I think that the template is the wrong place to try and work this in. The Emeralds, in the example, were a bit of an oddity as far as cruisers go, and yes I would agree that the Leanders have more in common with the Yorks than the Emeralds. But the Emeralds were the preceding light cruiser class. The light class of cruiser that followed them were the Leanders. The light class that followed them were the Towns. And so on. The first heavy class of cruisers were the Counties. They were followed by the Yorks. What I think it comes down to is whether to do things by a technological progression and show where changes came in, which is a valid approach, but as people have admitted and where I have pointed out, problems could arise. Or to do it by chronological order, by type, as they are classified (rightly or wrongly) in the sources and as they exist on our pages that deal with them. Second class cruisers were under construction, development and usage at the same time as the armoured cruisers but I don't think it would make sense to try and work them in together. I think we should be consistent across our pages, take the path of least confusion and possibility of argument and follow established practice. The alternative is that we abolish the distinction we have at the moment between light cruisers and heavy cruisers and work them in together, which I have no particular objection to based on Emoscope's arguments. But at the moment we are split between the two depending on which page you go to, which can only be confusing to a reader. Benea 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm the only one pushing for using "predecessor" and "successor" to indicate evolution instead of chronology, so I can accept that it's not going to be that way ;-) What Emoscopes suggests sounds good to me. The light/heavy cruiser distinction is an arbitrary one, based on gun caliber, not displacement or purpose. It's different from the protected/armored cruiser distinction. It's probably a good idea to ignore it for the purpose of noting successors and predecessors, and just allow the user to navigate through all the treaty-era cruisers chronologically. TomTheHand 13:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Improvement to DANFS template

Maralia and I talked last night about a possible improvement to {{DANFS}}. Maralia thinks it would be a good idea if the template accepted, as an optional parameter, a link to DANFS's page on the ship. I agree completely, but we weren't sure of how the end result should look. Maralia, did you have any ideas?

I had two trains of thought. First, should we perhaps revise the DANFS template to look like a normal web source citation? Without a web address, it could just link directly to the DANFS front page, like this:

Naval Historical Center, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

With a web address, it could link right to the ship article, like this:

Naval Historical Center, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I just wonder if that format less clearly expresses the concept that "This article began as a copy of DANFS's entry on this ship". I feel the current format implies that better. My second thought, therefore, is that if an URL is supplied to the DANFS template, perhaps it could just add an additional sentence. You'd end up with something like this:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The original article can be found here.

What do you guys think? TomTheHand 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the first two examples would work; it would be nice to have it appear as a properly formatted reference, but I feel it's necessary to retain the "text from" and "public domain" aspects of the existing DANFS template. Additionally, links will vary from NHC to Hazegray, which would likely cause confusion.

I like your last example, with two changes:

let's not use 'original' since only the published books are truly original.
suggest 'entry' rather than 'article'.

I hope expanding the DANFS template to allow a direct link will help clarify the origin of DANFS info, and cut down on the number of {{unreferenced}} tags getting dropped on USN ship articles. Maralia 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the NHC now has the entirety of DANFS available online, with new material that was not present in the editions transcribed by Hazegray, and they are slowly updating it as time goes on. I think we should rely on NHC exclusively. With that said, I have no problem with your suggestions. TomTheHand 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've figured out how to do the The entry can be found here thing, and I'm ready to add it to the DANFS template. Anyone have any objections to this being put in? It's entirely optional, and when no parameter is supplied the template will continue to work as it always has. TomTheHand 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done! Simply using {{DANFS}} gives the same result as before:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

Using {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/iowa-iii.htm}} produces this:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.

If you create a new article based on DANFS, please provide a link to the DANFS entry in the template. If you edit an article that has a DANFS template on it, and it already links to the entry in its "External links" section, it would be awesome if you could move the link inside the template. TomTheHand 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Torpedo damage of HMAS Hobart (D63) at Espiritu Santo on 23 ...

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Yet another ships infobox?

This caught me by surprise ... was anyone else aware that we apparently have a dedicated {{Greek Ship}} infobox ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Words aren't even coming to me. TomTheHand 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Try "arg!" or "headdesk ... thwap!" --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that this morning - haven't gotten around to looking at it because I am still fixing all the footer templates which were "improved" by removing all italics formatting when nameless.editor was 'updating to use navbox template'. I can't believe someone would be so irresponsible as to not fix them after their errors were pointed out. GRRRRRR! Maralia 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

After going out of town for the weekend, it took me a while to make it far enough up my watchlist to discover the new super deluxe infobox (dang my employer making me work!). As to your frustration with footer fixing, I know the feeling ... but to keep from getting burnt-out while working on a big, monotonous task like that, I often take 'breaks' and whore myself out to other tasks and/or projects. Now that I think about it, I believe I have been on a break from working on our Kategory Konfusion for at least a year now. I only wish the same avoidance technique worked on my wife's honey-do list. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetitive, boring work is one thing - work created by someone else's errors they can't be bothered to fix is another thing entirely. Maralia 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We call that "nega-work" or "Wally work," but either way, you are my hero for fixing it!! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

File:GD Kennedy SLV AllanGreen.jpg - Wikipedia

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A quick question...

Should Warrior (1832) be at Warrior (ship)? Benea 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

She was not a ship. US steamboat Warrior (1832) is a possibility.--Toddy1 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just following what seemed to be the protocol on other boat and ship articles, was this incorrect? I have never created an article about any type of water vehicle before. IvoShandor 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Following our naming conventions - "But when the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses as usual. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name", and the example used is "Santa Maria (ship) (compare Santa Maria)". We would use the prefix if she had one. So SS Warrior would be the first choice I think, if that was how she would have been known. Failing that, it would be Warrior (ship), Warrior (steamboat) or Warrior (1832 steamboat), or maybe even Warrior (1832 ship), depending on how much disambiguation was needed. From interpreting the guidelines, I think 'SS Warrior', or failing that, 'Warrior (steamboat)' are the two best alternatives. I think we should be making clear in the title that the Warrior in question is a vessel, rather than some other alternative. Am I right? Benea 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The outcome of this may also affect Enterprise (1814). Benea 12:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Warrior (ship) would not be correct, and would most likely be accessed by someone looking for one of the HMS Warriors. Why not leave Warrior (1832) as is? ('"First, do no harm" . . . or "when in doubt, do nothing.") Kablammo 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be for moving it to anything but Warrior (steamboat) or something similar. I don't know that SS is appropriate, (or is it?) because I have never seen it referred to that way. Originally, I was going to name it "Warrior (steamboat)" until I saw other articles used the year to dab. I don't think there is any conceivable way someone could arrive at this article and not have been actively searching for it. Especially since Warrior is a dab page. But, of course, whatever is best, or whatever folks think is best is what I would defer to. IvoShandor 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Warrior goes to what you think, a warrior that fights wars, but the dab is linked prominently. Just to append and correct what I actually meant to say. IvoShandor 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I don't particularly mind. I think it would be helpful to make clear in the title that it as a ship/vessel/boat/whichever you prefer as opposed to anything else an article titled 'Warrior' might be. We disambiguate firstly by type and secondly by year, so it might be good to keep to that convention in this case. But I don't have any really strong feelings on the subject. I think Ivo's original suggestion of Warrior (steamboat) is the clearest, most accurate and helpful, and most in keeping with our guidelines. Anyone opposed to moving it there? Benea 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not here. Either can link to the other. Kablammo 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)No problems with the move, as I said, that was what I was going to originally call it anyway, I just thought I wouldn't be doing it right if I did. Thanks everybody for the input too. Hope you enjoyed the article, it was like unraveling a mystery doing the research, really fun. IvoShandor 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved it, it's now at Warrior (steamboat). Hopefully everyone is happy (or at least non-committal) about this. I agree it's a good article, well written and sourced. We could use a lot more like them! Well done for all your hard work in this area. Benea 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. Glad to see an article about an early steam warship! I really must get on with finishing User:The Land/Wooden steam warship - please feel free to add stuff about American steamers if you want to! The Land 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

File:GeorgiyPobedonosets-linkor.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Carrier armor/armour

A new article, Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs, could use the attention of one versed in WWII carriers. While the article is well-written, some of the facts may be incorrect and some of the conclusions may go too far. Kablammo 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to take a long look at this right now, but this essay may be useful in improving the article. TomTheHand 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be an idea to move it to something like "Flight Deck Armour" or "Flight Deck Design" The Land 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

from the spund of the title it smacks of OR. especially with use of comparison and conclusion. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article, while new, is spun off from another. Some of its conclusions are sound; others are open to debate, as shown in the article TomTheHand cites. It is almost unsourced. Kablammo 12:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was it spun off, I wonder. Was it superfluous to the original or contentious.?149.254.192.195 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was spun off from Flight deck because it occupied a disproportionate amount of space there. It does seem like an essay and parts of it have uncited POV. While it appears to have OR, there likely are sources which would support most of it, unfortunately not cited. the piece also could be trimmed.

I suggest that further discussion be taken to the article's talk page, so that potential contributors can have the benefits of the thoughts and suggestions of the members of this project. Kablammo 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

File:USS Helm (DD-388) - 19-N-28728.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Misnamed Ship

The USS Mettawee (AOG-17) has been misnamed the USS Mattawee (AOG-17) in Wikipedia -- appears to be a typographical error. I've added a comment to the article's talk page, along with rationale for the typo claim. I know Wikipedia is DIY, and considered attempting to correct the article myself, but am not an experienced Wikipedian and balked at the thought of changing an article title, associated class article title and internal references. My thanks to the many Wikipedians who have made Wikipedia an excellent reference for historical and contemporary ships. -- Jonathan Weesner 74.74.67.49 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have much else to do today, so I made the shift. The reasoning looks sound, DANFS lists her as Mettawee and half the article actually refers to her as Mettawee. I corrected any occurances of Mattawee in the text, so hopefully that's the matter sorted. I'm a Royal Navy man myself, so if there's some mistakes I've made and she is actually Mattawee, I'm happy to accept correction. Benea 10:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Greek Ship

Template:Greek Ship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Container Ship.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Response needed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)

Somebody please respond to this. If I do so myself, I will most certainly fall on my sword, which would be a sad occurrence seeing as it's my birthday, and my party's not till Saturday. Maralia 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, the number of 'ships' that will need renaming if this gets through. We use HMS whether it's a ship or submarine or a sloop or a frigate or whatever, no matter how it was rigged. As I also recall, we backdate, so HMS/USS etc used for ships that wouldn't neccessary have been named that (e.g. HMS Ark Royal (1587)). I vote consistency, and to overturn this...but I'm scared of posting that on the talkpage all on my lonesome. Benea 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is to say, overturn the current use of U.S. Brig Niagara (replica) in favour of a USS prefix. It certainly should NOT have those full stops (or periods as you prefer) in there. Benea 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevent bit quoted here -

However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice:

HMS Royal Charles (not "English ship Royal Charles")
USS Constellation (not "United States ship Constellation")

and I might add - USS Niagra (not "U. S. Brig Niagra") Benea 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've had a closer look and he's talking about the replica ... duh, slaps self repeatedly round head with haddock a la Monty Python. In that case, I'm not sure what the convention is (except that those pesky dots are superfluous). And that we shouldn't rename every vessel that wasn't ship rigged to something like HM Sloop 'such and such'. Benea 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The replica ship is what started this iteration of the conversation - but he does appear to be proposing broad application of archaic prefixes, and in fact applying the archaic definition of 'ship' as well, hence my utter speechlessness. Maralia 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Our guidelines are clear, and for once they tally with wikipedia's general guidelines (hurrah!). In this country we call that 'not having a leg to stand on.' I've pointed it out on the talkpage. And that I would think should be that. All together now...Happy Birthday to You, Happy Birthday to You, Happy Birthday dear Maralia...Happy Birthday to You! Benea 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The user is back - this is what he has posted -

es, but we don't suggest listing Livy as "Herodotus", either, nor do we call him a Spaniard. If the use of "US Brig" is troubling, call 'em all "Niagara (XXX)", but to call a brig a ship in the title is neither modern nor SOP. As the convention makes clear, it's not necessary to write "the Victory". Why, then, should not we write "Niagara" and eschew the prefixes that seem to be at the heart of the conflict? There's a wide gap between avoiding archaisms or obsolete terms -- it would be foolish to list USS Constitution as a frigate, though she was then, because the term has taken on new meaning -- and using iinaccurate and misleading ones.

I started to respond but my blood pressure couldn't cope - can we please establish a consensual response? I'm really bothered that he seems to be advocating dropping the prefixes for every vessel that wasn't 'ship rigged' because technically they can't be Her Majesty's Ship xxx if xxx was a submarine, say. Despite the fact that WAS the name they were commissioned under, served under, were known by her contemporaries and are known in every reputable scholarly work that deals with the world's navies that I can think of. Benea 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a response. Disrupting the 'pedia to make a point is strictly against guidelines. Article names are supposed to help interested people find the article. Discussions about whether a vessel is a brig or a ship should be confined to articles about the language, and not embedded in article names. (And that's all I have to say about that.) Jinian 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

File:USS Louisville (CA-28) off the Mare Island Naval Shipyard on ...

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Two CfDs of note for this project

Members of this project may wish to take note of a CfD that has been opened on Category:Disambiguation lists of ships. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:Disambiguation lists of ships for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Members of this project may also wish to take note of a CfM that has been opened on Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names that proposes its merger into Category:Canadian Forces ship names. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 5#Category:Royal Canadian Navy ship names for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

File:USS Honolulu (CL-48) and USS St. Louis (CL-49) returning from ...

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Please help

What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project -- working thorough 165,000 articles -- is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.

Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ships called "The London"

Can any of the experts on this wikiproject help....Has there been more than one ship called "The London"? The article Rapparee, Ilfracombe discusses the wreck of "The London" in 1796, & see Morris, Steven (2007-11-06). "Prisoners or slaves? New row over wrecks bones". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-11-06. , but the article it links to The London says it sank in the Bay of Biscay in 1866. Any help or explanation appreciated.-- Rod ^talk 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ship names are rarely unique, and that's a particularly popular one. There have been no less than sixteen Royal Navy ships by the name of HMS London, for example; it's easy to imagine two merchant ships sharing the name within the span of 100 years. I suspect the person who wrote Rapparee, Ilfracombe just didn't check where his interwiki link went. That's an interesting article, and I'd be happy to help if you decide to write an article based on it. Maralia 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The ship was (probably) the London rather than "The London". GraemeLeggett 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although not directly related, there have also been several (commercial) ships called The Londoner (none have a Wiki article as far as I know). -- Kjet 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um,

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, and i may be out of line for bringing it up, but when I was surfing through the list of articles for what links to your project I found an a-class review that no one from here has commented on here. At first I thought it was for the armed service group, but on closer inspection it says ships at the top; so i guess thats your project. It seems abadoned, hence why i bring it up; it ought to be commented on or closed or something; it looks wierd just sitting there unused. -- Wendy --Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.227.61 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

USS Kentucky (BB-66) is now an A-class article

This article has passed its Military History WikiProject A-class review. I did a quick check of all of our articles and this is currently the only A-class article in our project scope. Next stop Featured Article?-MBK004 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)? ;) Comments are welcome. Woodym555 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes ... man Tom doesn't rest for long. It just finishes the A-class review and he puts it up as a FAC almost immediately.-MBK004 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is a quick, never stopping system (well, until it gets to FA). No rest for the wicked! Woodym555 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorization question

In a recent CFD, it was noted that many ship articles are double-categorized in both a parent cat and its sub-category. Specifically, articles are put in both by-country and by-navy cats. For example, all articles in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy are also in Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States. All United States Navy frigates are frigates of the United States (obviously), so why can't you just make the by-navy cat a sub-category of the by-country cat, then put ships in the appropriate by-navy cat? I don't see any need to put them in both, it creates a lot of clutter. jwillbur 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page to explain some of the background. Basically, the double categorization in "Ships by navy" and "Ships by country" has long been a thorny issue for would-be ship categorizers.

One of the problems with the proposal you're making here is that certain navies span several different political entities. The Royal Navy, for example, spans ships of the UK, ships of Britain and ships of England. And then navies can also change their names from time to time. For example, Germany had about five different navies during the 20th century. So this isn't as straightforward as it may first appear. Gatoclass 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Country and navy categories are not parent and child categories, but separate structures. Please don't remove country categories from articles or cats. TomTheHand 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, let me step back and answer more thoroughly. First, thank you for the categorization work you're doing. The work you've done to clean up the categorization mess on articles such as USS Litchfield County (LST-901)is awesome. Now, to explain the country/navy thing. There are a few opinions on the matter. On the one hand, there is a group of people who feel that ships should be categorized by country, because that's the easiest thing for laymen to browse. On the other hand, other people feel that ships should be categorized by navy, because it's more precise. There are also a number of people who feel that both categories should be used, to ensure absolute accuracy when the country or navy names have changed through history.

Merges have been proposed one way or another over the course of the past few years, and none are successful because the issue is so evenly split. If you'd like to try to change consensus on the issue, please go for it, but please don't just go ahead and make the changes. If hundreds of articles are categorized a particular way, there is a reason for it, and you need to discuss before making mass changes. TomTheHand 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the most cluttery thing is the presence of navy or country categories on ship articles. If the ship article has a class category, and that class category has the appropriate country or navy categories, there's no need for them to be on the ship article. That's something we did at one time, but we abandoned it as confusing, unnecessary, and messy. Your work removing those is invaluable. Thanks. TomTheHand 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For those coming late to the discussion, or for those who do not completely follow what TomTheHand said ... the gist is that individual ship articles do not need to be in the same navy/nation categories as the ship class category. As an example, USS San Francisco (SSN-711) does not need to be in Category:Submarines of the United States or Category:United States Navy submarines because the parent category for USS San Francisco (SSN-711), Category:Los Angeles class submarines, is a member of both Category:Submarines of the United States and Category:United States Navy submarines. Please note that this is not the case for other kinds of categories like eras. (Largely because ship classes often span multiple areas, even though the ships in the class do not. For example, while some Baltimore-class cruisers were built during World War II, later members of the class were commissioned years after the war's end.) --Kralizec! (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Current FACs in the scope of this project

There are currently two Featured Article Candidates that come under the purview of this project in conjunction with the Maritime Warfare Task Force of the Military History WikiProject.
They are currently rated as A-class and also are the only A-class articles under our purview.
They are:

USS Kentucky (BB-66) review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)
Pre-dreadnought review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pre-dreadnought

Your participation and any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, MBK004 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Two categories for US military ship classes are being considered for merging/renaming here. Assistance with determining at which title the categories should be located would be most appreciated. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I asked nicely,

would you guys assess the class and importance of the newly created article Sacramento class fast combat support ships? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rated as start and high respectively. Feel free to jump up and down on me if you disagree. Benea 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for putting era categories on class articles

There's a couple of issues I'd like to raise. First, there is nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization that addresses the "Ships by type" tree. I really think we should work out a system for this tree as well, otherwise someone is eventually going to have to go back over all the articles and do them for this tree. I'm not sure how advanced the "Ships by place of construction" tree is, but I think a little time spent now working out a basic format for it, assuming it hasn't already been done, would also be useful.

On a more specific note, I disagree with the categorization guideline which says eras should not go on class articles, in fact it appears to contradict what TomTheHand said to me only the other day. It makes sense that era categories should not go on ship class categories, but I think eras have to go on the class articles because the era tree lacks class categories altogether and users need some means of a finding a particular class of ships in that tree. Gatoclass 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Ships by Type" tree is very high level and splits early into countries, navies, eras, and classes. Nothing related to "Ships by Type" should go on ship articles, class articles, or class categories. If we added every battleship to Category:Battleships it'd be really messy and hard to navigate.

I don't think eras should go on class articles, for the same reason that eras shouldn't go on class categories: you can very rarely specify eras that apply to an entire class. Let's take the Balao class as an example. Most were completed during World War II and served in that war, but not all. Some were completed after the war, while others were cancelled. Many went on to Cold War service, but not all; some served off of Korea, some off of Vietnam. There are many classes that are in the same boat (heh, that sounds silly): the Essexes, the Gearings, the Battles. I consider World War II categories to be inaccurate descriptions of these ships, and I don't think it's necessary to be able to browse classes through the era structure. Additionally, they make for messy browsing, if there are class articles scattered through a category of mostly ship articles. I think era categories should only go on ship articles. TomTheHand 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason, though, why more than one era cat cannot go on a class article. Since class articles are not ships, there aren't many other cats that exist for them, so I see no problem with having the Essex class article you mentioned going into Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States, Category:Korean War aircraft carriers of the United States and Category:Vietnam War aircraft carriers of the United States. I mean, look at it. The current article is only in two cats! And after all, if the user has gone to that particular page, he is going to find out that ships of this class were used in all those wars so it's hardly likely to be confusing.

As for it "making for messy browsing", on the contrary, I think it can enhance the neatness and convenience of the categories. For example, a while back (before I knew about the current guideline) I put all the amphibious warfare ship class articles into Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States, they are all listed logically at the start of the listings, go and take a look (I request you don't go altering them until at least this discussion is through). I think this sort of thing would be of great assistance to the user, because it enables him to see at a glance which classes were active at the time, and to go to any of the articles in question and then navigate straight to the individual ship articles through the class template. If you don't have a means of selecting by class here, you just have a whole mass of ships and no way to distinguish between one type and another unless you are familiar with the hull classification numbers.

So unless there's some other reason it shouldn't be done that hasn't yet been raised, I think it's worth considering adopting this method. Gatoclass 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But not all Essexes served in WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam, and so I don't think those categories should be used to describe the class. I do think what you've done at Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States looks good. Categorizing the class categories would look equally good, I think, and there'd be no need for sorting tricks: the categories would be listed separately at the top, and by clicking on them you'd be able to see a full listing of the ships in the class as well as being able to easily access the class article.

I don't know. I can see the advantage of giving era categories to classes, but I still feel it's better to keep them off to avoid implying blanket statements about the ships of the class. It's for the same reason that I wouldn't put Category:Submarines of Brazil onto Category:Balao class submarines or Balao class submarine, even though five Balaos were purchased by Brazil. TomTheHand 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, not all of the ships served in these conflicts, but some of them did. So putting the era cats on the class articles gives the reader a thumbnail view of the classes that were active in a particular era. That seems to me an advantage rather than a problem. And I think it outweighs the possible disadvantage that maybe some reader, at some point in time, might wrongly assume that the classes he is looking at only fought in that particular conflict, or that all the ships in that class necessarily fought in it. I mean, I think we should be prepared to give readers a little credit for being able to figure things out for themselves. Gatoclass 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kralizec? Maralia? Benea? Bueller? Bueller? I have no intention of speaking for WP:SHIPS here; my opinion is that era cats shouldn't be attached to classes, but I'm not strongly opposed to what Gatoclass is proposing. What do you guys think? TomTheHand 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate - I can see the logic in excluding class categories from era parent-categories because if you do that you end up listing a whole bunch of ship articles in that era cat which did not actually serve in that era. But this is not the case for class articles. The class article gives an overview of the history of the class, not of individual ships. And since it includes, or should include, a potted history of all the eras the class was active in, it's hardly likely to confuse the reader. So there are no real disadvantages to listing class articles in era cats, and the advantage is that it gives readers a thumbnail view of all the classes which were active in that era.

It seems that most class articles currently have only a couple of attached categories anyway, so the addition of a couple of extra era categories is not going to overwhelm them and may be seen as an advantage. Moreover, the addition of era cats to these articles again gives the reader a quick thumbnail view of all the eras the class was active in, so I think it's useful in that respect too. Gatoclass 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have desperately strong feelings about this, both sides have their logic, so I'm unsure which approach would be best. Put me down as neutral, with a side order of non-committal. pip pip, Benea 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Much like Benea, I do not have very strong feelings either way on this issue. I kinda lean toward not including era cats on class articles because the order-obsessed part of my brain wants both class articles and class categories to be in the same cats, and I definitely feel that class cats should not have era cats. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no obvious reason why class articles cannot be in both class cats and era cats. In fact, that's essentially what I've been proposing.

Anyhow, I'm still thinking about this proposal and how viable it is, to be honest I find the ship cats to be such a maze that it's difficult to figure out in advance which approaches might be viable and which might not. In fact I'm still not even convinced the current organization is viable :) It's certainly a big mess right now, so maybe the sensible thing to do is to try and sort out the existing mess rather than potentially adding to it.

Does anyone know where I might be able to get a full view of the ship categorization tree? I'm sure I've seen this somewhere but I can't remember where to look. Gatoclass 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for. Rumours say that the last editor who stared into the inky, imponderable depths of our categorization structure ... went mad! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can verify that statement, because it was me. Wait, that's original research. Damn! Anyway, if you figure out how to view the full ship categorization tree, let me know because I'd love to see it too. TomTheHand 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I got it! Special:CategoryTree! TomTheHand 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yuck. I think you can keep it. Gatoclass 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have not posted here because this issue (era cats on class articles) is, in my opinion, a drop in the bucket. I'm going to start some BOLD cleanup of categories tonight. I won't mess with the era issue, or country vs navy, but there's a shitpile of other categories that are entirely misplaced. Get your pitchforks ready. Maralia 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right this is a relatively minor matter. I look forward to seeing what you can achieve. Someone certainly needs to be working on these categories, I'm afraid I personally have gotten a bit discouraged as I've become more aware of their complexities. Gatoclass 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, got a decent start. Began clearing up the ugly patrol craft/vessel/boat redundancy, and refined a lot of categories out of Category:Ships and Category:Ships by type into already existing subcats. All pitchfork-wielding parties please stand by till morning, as my eyes started crossing and I'm going to sleep. Maralia 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been giving the era-on-class-article issue further thought, and it's starting to make sense to me. I was kind of having the same issue as Kralizec: "I see no reason why class articles should have different categories from class categories, and I don't think era categories should go on class categories because it implies that the ships in the cat all served in that era." However, I've been thinking about a few things:

Class articles are currently hardly categorized. They're in the class cat, and they're in the Category:Ships by class cat, but the latter is probably redundant.
In many cases (minor navies, etc), we have a class article but no (or few) ship articles, and due to the lack of readily available sources, we may not have ship articles in a realistic timeframe. As a result, the era categories are underpopulated.
I can get over my mental block by thinking that era cats on class articles don't imply that every ship in the class served in that era, while sticking them on class cats does; therefore, class articles should be categorized differently from class cats.

So... shall we change the categorization guidelines? Era cats continue to stay off class cats, but they go on class articles. Class articles should be listed at the head of era categories, above all articles, like Gatoclass has done it. TomTheHand 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the undercategorization of class articles. However, I think the clause prohibiting class articles from country categories will also have to be removed along with the one prohibiting them from era categories.

I do think classes should be represented in some form in the era cats and this seems a logical way to go about it. Gatoclass (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that class categories carry country categories, I see no reason why class articles should have them as well. TomTheHand (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've currently given up trying to understand ship categories. However, as I recall the era categories are themselves divided up into country cats, thus you have for example "World War II amphibious warfare vessels of the United States". So I'm not entirely sure what that guideline which says class articles should not have country cats, means. Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It means don't put Category:Battleships of the United States on Iowa class battleship, because it's already on Category:Iowa class battleships. TomTheHand (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case I still think the clause should be dropped, because it's not at all clear what it means and it seems to be addressing a commonly encountered kind of categorization issue that is usually resolved by commonsense anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the clause should be dropped, because country categories shouldn't be put onto class articles and we need to say that somewhere. If it's phrased badly, it should be rephrased so it's clear. TomTheHand (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if it can be rephrased to be unambiguous, I don't see why it couldn't stay. Gatoclass (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this picture?

Check out Image:Harnett County AGP-821.jpg. The pink water is ... very odd. I presume it is not a red tide or something similar, but I really have no idea what it is. Any thoughts? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mud or sand, perhaps, from the landing craft? - BillCJ 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be a sandbar or something similar its defiantly some kind of sediment in the water. MarVelo 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we know where this is? Could be river outflow, depositing sediment. Or could be she's leaking oil. Trekphiler 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bleached coral? Does anyone know her history - Did she ground? Viv Hamilton 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the vessel is an LSV designed to beach and then discharge vehicles. It may be aground with the engines running astern waiting for the tide to lift it clear.Jmvolc (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The pink tinge extends to the decks and stern. Something to do with the colour of the photograph itself? Benea (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, beached with two other boats tied on (no offense) not likely ive seen it before somewere its a macherniary fuel or something ,dye , sediment (redclay, or sandrock) but not likly, could be napalm it is a fuel with chemical thickners, but i think it has something to do with macheneray fuel or, oil, grease, or something.ANOMALY-117 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) and definatly not a photographic error because the guy took the pic from a helicopter with the sun to his right or directily behind him and at maybe 12 to 3 o'clock in the day. but your guess is still as good as mine.ANOMALY-117 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely - the pink tinge extends from the decks, down the stern on the port side and into the sea, where it spreads forward and off the starboard, significantly not to her port or stern. Something being washed from her decks, off the starboard of her stern (note the white colour where it enters the water - splashing, rather like a waterfall?) where the current carries it off from the ship, washing it forward and to the right. Sound plausible? Benea 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Initially I thought it could be something being washed off, but I could not figure out what (a) would be pink, and (b) that there would be so much of it, the stuff is being washed off the stern and the area forward of the helipad, especially since the ship is over 300 ft long. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

hehhe.. pepto-bismal. any-way and do we have any information on flip-ships or is their only one of its kind? o and i have to do a 5-page paper on hitler does any-body know anything? yes i tried the page but, the @!!$%@^ parental controls won't let me in! ANOMALY-117 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)

A.B. posted about this AFD on MILHIST a little while ago, and I think it's of interest to us. Quote:

Are commissioned naval vessels, including ocean-going tugs, inherently notable? --A. B. ^(talk) 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please weigh in. Thanks! TomTheHand 14:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

defenitly notable, why? i don't remember but they deserve recongtion. especialy the crew of the tugs they would want their ship in this to. I think this project is more of momorile to the crew than the ships. right? hey does any one have a yamato banner or how-to so ican put one on my user page? major yamato class fan and i don't know anything about the anime so thats not why i like it i like it because i think it should be one of the "seven wonders of the world" in ship building and engenering.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

???

Can someone with a bit more experience in this field take a look at Trip pilots? At the moment it seems to be little more of a thinly veiled attack page, but perhaps something could be made of it? Benea 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree with your assessment of the article in question and have nominated it for speedy deletion via the G10 criteria. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) now open

The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Amphibious assault ships vs. amphibious warfare vessels

Articles

For a long time, I've thought the Amphibious assault ship article is a mess. THe Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a noarrow opening definition of the ships, and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare vessel. Is there any way we can address this? Perhaps the general information could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. THese are just my random opening thoughts - I wlecome any othe ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably go so far as to say that the article should be renamed to "amphibious warfare vessel", and a new article at "amphibious assault ship" should be created at some point in the future. -- TomTheHand (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Do you think a move needs to be proposed at the article page, or just go ahead and do it? I'd probably be able to work up a basic stub on the big ships at the same time, somewhat like the LCAC page below. - -- BillCJ (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg Merchant Navy?

In the useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns, there's an ensign for the Luxembourg Merchant Navy. Luxembourg is landlocked. Is this ensign real? Folks at 137 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of landlocked countries at least Swizerland and Mongolia have (or have had) a merchant navy - so it's possible that the ensign is real. I'm not an expert though, so someone might know better. -- Kjet 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

NOTE: This is a copy of a proposal on the Maritime History task force page talk page; replies should be posted there.

Bouncing off an idea from MBK004 (talk · contribs), would there be any interest in treating featured topics for ship classes by updating the class page and ship pages to FA status? It could help expand our featured topic selection, which would be benificial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WW2 Merchant shipping notability

Hi, I was wondering what (if any) were the notability guidelines regarding merchant ships operating or sunk during the Second World War? I've noticed a few ships gaining article which really do not seem to be especially exceptional (like SS British Premier) and I was wondering if all merchant ships sunk in WW2 or whether there are more stringent rules than that. I don't have strong feelings on this one way or another, but clarification would be useful.--Jackyd101 15:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All ships are notable in my opinion. Gatoclass 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All ships are notable. I suppose then it depends how a 'ship' is defined though. Nick mallory (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Were the vessel to sink today, there would be a new article instantly created, with hundreds of edits in the first few days. (For that matter, if Edmund Fitzgerald were to go down now, the article would be much longer and fully sourced.) Presentism may be a jarring word but it decribes valuable concepts. Does notability attenuate over time? If so, why? What was notable in 1944 (or 1914, or 1912) should remain so today. Kablammo 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm to thank/blame for a good few of these articles (SS British Premier, SS Clearton and SS Atheltempler). Incidentally the Atheltempler was on the main page a couple of days ago as a DKY, so I think that's the most likely opportunity for anyone to weigh in with notability concerns. And there wasn't a peep. Whether ships are notable in their own right (I lean towards thinking that if a sourced article can be written on them, they are) is one thing, the fact these were actually sunk in combat, often with loss of life, at a time when the fate of nations depended on whether ships like this survived or not, makes ships like these notable beyond reasonable doubt. -- Benea (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe all ships are notable and ships sunk in war are certainly notable. -- Inge (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MV Golden Nori is a good example I think of a ship getting caught up in a situation, and an article being created about it. There seems little difference to me in the notability of the two situations. -- Benea (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no opinion about this issue one way or another, but it is worth noting that literally thousands of ships were sunk by military action during the Second World War and even more during the First World War. I actually have a book which lists them and I would be surprised if the worldwide total was much less than 10,000 in each war. Now that is an awful lot of articles about an awful lot of ships which may not say anything substantially different from each other. The great difference between a ship sunk today and a ship sunk in 1942 or 1916 is that only a few dozen ships a year go down today, back then hundreds did. Now I am by no means opposed to the principle that all these ships deserve articles, but if so perhaps some guidelines should be set governing notability requirements (e.g. is every fishing boat sunk during the first world war notable?) and also a more refined category structure should be devised to maintain this potentially huge database of ship articles. This is why I raise the quesiton here, as this seems the place for the discussion of such things.---- Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here-- given the level of response this is clearly the right place. You raise some good points, especially on where the line is drawn. But rules are always most difficult to enforce at the margins. The loss of a ship, with loss of life, may be notable; the loss of boat may not be. (And I would not go so far as to say that every ship is inherently notable, but others here do.) But is the loss of a ship in wartime less notable simply because of greater carnage going on contemporaneously? Is notability relative?

In part the multiplicity of articles can be controlled by treated some events in groups, e.g. PQ17. -- Kablammo (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there was one other thing I wanted to bring up, what are the rules regarding article titles? Because most ship articles, where possible, have the ship's prefix before the name in the title (which would make sense, aid disambiguation and tell readers that they are looking at a ship rather than anything else). Yet some long-established ship articles do not have the prefix e.g. Arandora Star or Empress of Britain (1930) for just two. What is the rule here?---- Jackyd101 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked for a while, but I believe that prefixes are pretty much optional. I personally only use them when I need to disambiguate from something else, say if you have a ship called "George Washington" you are obviously going to want to name the article "SS George Washington" to disambig.

I don't believe prefixes should be used where they can be avoided because (a) they are not the most common name by which ships are usually referred to, thus violationg basic Wiki policy, (b) they are unsightly, (c) they are misleading in that the articles themselves generally don't bother with the prefix, and (d) they make it harder to search for something, ie what do you do when you know the name of the ship but are unsure of the prefix? So leaving out the prefix makes searching easier, and also creates less work for people wanting to link to the page. As I said though, if you have two different items with the same name then using the prefix makes a lot more sense. -- Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-military prefixes are often not consistently used in the real world and are not mutually exclusive. A MV (motor vessel) can also be a MT (motor tanker); MS (motor ship) and MV (motor vessel) are the same thing; a PS (paddle steamer) is likely also a SS (steamship), and different sources often use different prefixes for the same ship . . . long story short, non-military prefixes are kind of a crapshoot, so we often don't title by them unless a prefix is demonstrably well-known for that ship (RMS Titanic) or, as you mentioned, where it's handy for disambiguation. -- Maralia (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Era cats on class articles

Yesterday, I made a new post to last week's discussion on putting era cats onto class articles. I had reconsidered the situation and am thinking that perhaps we should change the guideline. I know most folks did not have a strong opinion on this, but I'd nevertheless like to ask that anyone interested check it out here. -- TomTheHand (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

LCAC article

A few months ago, I noticed that there was no article specifically about the USN LCAC. I've finally been able to knock one together at LCAC, with some good pics. My knowledge of the type is very limited, and I don't have the time right now to do anything deeper. If anyone would like to help expand the article, there are some ELs included that should help one get started. Also, the German de:Landing Craft Air Cushioned page is a good start for anyone who reads the language. Thanks for whatever you can do to help this often-overlooked type. - -- BillCJ (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Class and type categories

User:Jackyd101 has recently been going around removing the Category:Royal Navy ships of the line and Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom from articles (eg HMS Albion (1763)) that also have a class category attached to them. As far as I am aware, it is normal for us to include the class category AND the type category in these cases - but I think particularly so when it comes to ships of the line as the concept of a class, although real, is nowhere near as defined as it is in the modern sense. I think it is more useful to the reader to have the type categories present on the articles as well as the class. Martocticvs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We used to put a type/country category onto every article, but you wind up with an overwhelming number of categories on ship articles, so the guideline is now to put it on the class category where possible and remove it from the ship articles. You bring up a good point about ships of the line, so perhaps they should be an exception, but I don't think country cats should go on every single article. List articles are a better way to provide people with a complete list of ships of a particular type. TomTheHand (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps that is best, then. There were a rather large number of ships of the line in total, so that list was already becoming quite long. Martocticvs (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ship pronoun usage

At the risk of asking a question discussed many times, what are the guidelines regarding the us of feminine personal pronouns for ships in regualr text (not in quotatations)? I've found no mention in the Project guidelines. I've always understood that formal ENglish used netral pronouns for inanimate objects, including ships. - BillCJ (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a lengthy discussion on the subject. There is one suggestion to use it instead of she there. --MoRsE (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an enormous can of worms to be opening. Conventional English language use is to refer to inanimate objects as 'it', i.e. "I have a new desk, it is 5ft by 7ft." Ships have long been a historical exception to this, with the argument that bestowing a name, when a ship is christened, bestows a gender, as with children, animals, etc. So, "HMS Victory was Nelson's flagship. She fought at..." I think we take the first use of the pronoun as the guideline for that article, like when deciding on US/British English spelling on articles when there is no national basis for choosing one over the other. Though sometimes the user who makes a major page expansion can set the precedent as well. Following common usage means we tend towards 'she' rather than 'it'. Benea (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal opinion on common usage, Benea. However, I asked if there were MOS guidleines for formal English usage, ie what would be proper for an encyclopedia. THere are many traditions in common usage of English, both American and UKish, that we do not use for formal writing, which isthe basis for the Wiki MOS. As a user of Southern AMerican English, would you support using "y'all" and "ain't" in an article on the US states of Alabama and Georgia, if that was what the first editor used? I somehow think not. - BillCJ (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. Benea accurately described the consensus under which we operate here, not his 'personal opinion'. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I think I touched a nerve there. I understood what you asked, but I think you misunderstood my reply, which as Maralia has kindly pointed out, is not my personal opinion but what I thought was an accurate description of consensus on a subject that has been a bit too contentious so far to establish a sold MoS guideline. But I'm happy to take correction, if phrased in a slightly more pleasant way than your response was. Benea (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. is the answer I expected, not not some long, drawn-out rambling about history and usage that I already know. I'll just chalk this up as another case where formal English rules apparently don't apply to Wikipedia because people have emotional attachments to common usage. Or, in the style in which I will now start writing in mainspace, "Y'all don't make no sense!" :) - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT ;-) TomTheHand (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to add WP:DICK, since you obviously won't allow me the use of sarcasm. :P - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As another linguistic group might say, "Very bad form sir. That's just not cricket." Benea (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who objected to my unpleasant resonses because of misunderstandings, I see you have no objection to exercising both towards me. I've been around here a lot longer than you, so I'm well familiar with the alphabet soup "experienced" editors like to use to intimidate others who disagree with them. If the rest of you will please refrain from piling on as he has, please stick to the actual discussion at hand, or don't say anything. - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely a bit confused. At first I thought you were being a bit uncivil. Then I thought you were joking. Now I don't know what to think. Should I be laughing or taking offense? Help! Computerspeak may be all very well but it means we can't use the normal British gestures like facial expressions, winks, or secret handshakes (my personal favourite). I'll admit I'm a bit adrift at the moment. Please insult me slightly more explicitly (references to tea or cricket will do) if that was your intention. pip pip, Benea (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I quite like alphabet soup. Is that a bad thing? Benea (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting involved in a contentious issue such as this is not worth my time anymore. See this diff for an admin's attempt to edit war with me when he changed the pronouns already in the article, prompting my good-faith query here. Given this admin's quickness to edit war wih me on a French carrier article, I am certainly not going to correct the use of "his" on the Light aircraft carrier page for Spanish ships per this diff, even tho I believe it is wrong. Given the lack of clear consensus on the pronoun issue, I will no longer be changing any pronoun usages for ships in any articles, even if they don't match existing usage on that page. - BillCJ (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I turned to my bookshelf to try to find out what people writing books about ships used. And I found mixed opinions. 'She' is probably more popular, but some authors use "it", and I found one switching about. Not to mention one author who seems quite happy to say "Its sister-ship". The books I looked at are at: User:The Land/Ship pronouns. The Land (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to agree with Benea. British ships, for example, are uniformly referred to as 'she' in my experience. This may be just a quirk of the English language, which doesn't usually have gender in grammar, but our cosmopolitan tongue is made up of nothing but quirks for the most part. I'd certainly say that 'she' should be used for all British ships. To take a hypothetical example, if someone writes an article on a ship of the Royal Navy I wouldn't see any justification for a later editor changing 'she' to 'it' in the piece. Nick mallory (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

German ships are always he.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads

Does this article come under our scope? It is listed as a Featured Article on the project main-page, but about a week ago I looked at the article talk page and noticed that our banner was not there. Since it was listed on the main page I added the project banner there. Now I'm having doubts about if it belongs or not. Thoughts?MBK004 (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would say it belongs here. While I wouldn't want every naval battle included in WP:SHIPS, this one seems to have been important in the history of ships Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we expand the scope of this project to include naval battles, this could be a very slippery slope as valid claims probably exist for virtually every naval battle. Additionally this project's tight focus on individual ships and ship classes helps differentiate and keep us from being merged into the Maritime warfare task force of WikiProject Military history. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with that. Although a battle inherently involves ships, an article on a battle is not an article on a specific ship, or class of ship, or something fundamental to a ship, and so I think it falls outside our project's focus. --Martocticvs (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody has objections, I'm going to be bold and remove our tag from the article's talk page and remove the reference from the project main page.-MBK004 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. WP:SHIPS should not expand into the territory of naval battles. The dividing line is probably a bit arbitrary, but there needs to be one somewhere. The Land (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done I've removed the tag from the article and the reference on the project main page.-MBK004 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

HEY IM BACK! SORRY HAD TO SLEEP AT SOME POINT hm.. so far great but the branstar should go behind the wheel.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion cost/benefit?

I recently edited the Tribal class destroyer (1936) page to replace many confusing links to vessels with the Template:Warship, however these were reverted shortly afterward and the editor pointed me toward the Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits while noting on my talk page that this template is too taxing for server processing. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I would argue that the benefits of standardizing and simplifying links to articles on vessels, not to mention the kilobytes saved, would trump any minuscule increase in server effort....Thanks! Plasma east (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I routinely use the {{HMS}} template for linking to RN ships, but only when making new links - there's not really any purpose to be served by changing extant links in an article to use a template. Martocticvs (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor who reverted did the right thing. I cannot see any benefit in changing perfectly serviceable links with the Template:Warship. We should be encouraging people to research and write good new articles. Templates can be a good thing, when they help people to do this.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Much like Martocticvs, I generally only use the ship shortcut templates ({{warship}}, {{HMS}}, {{USS}}, {{USNS}}, and {{sclass}}) when creating new articles or adding content to existing pages. That said, I normally do add the templates to ship disambiguation pages since 99% of them fail to follow WP:NC-SHIP and/or WP:MOSDAB. Regardless, I would like to extend my kudos to Plasma east for following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on this issue. All too often editors turn up their noses, say something like "WP:TCB is just an essay, not a guideline or policy," and just undo their reverter. Thank you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts on this subject. I'm a big fan of {{HMS}} and {{USS}}. They make it much easier to write, but just as important, they make articles easier to edit later. I'm not as big of a fan of {{warship}}, but I still think it's handy. I have regular expressions set up in my AWB to automatically apply {{HMS}} and {{USS}} to articles that I'm editing.

I had a conversation with GraemeLeggett here after he reverted some of my template usage. I don't know if it's necessarily a good idea to make edits solely to insert the templates into articles, but I think applying the templates while making other edits is fine, and I don't really agree with editing solely to remove the use of the templates. TomTheHand (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on this subject as it was the first time that I had considered the processing cost of such templates, having only thought about the reduced disk storage. Plasma east (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The don't worry about performance guideline would tell us not to worry so much about server churn or disk space, and instead focus on making the best possible encyclopedia. These templates would appear to work very well in that regard, as they both increase accuracy and decrease the amount of time it takes to type naming convention-compliant ship names. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm a fan of {{convert}}, which provides accurate unit conversions with configurable precision and formatting; I think it's preferable to use the convert template instead of performing a manual conversion. TomTheHand (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Seminole War ships

Category:Seminole War ships is orphaned. Please can one of the ship experts find a home for it, or (if it's not needed, nominate it for renaming or deletion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) o (contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Ships barnstar

The proposal

So that the members of this project may better recognize the outstanding efforts of their fellow members, I would like to propose the creation of a barnstar for WikiProject Ships! Thoughts? Opinions? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I propose the following in order to both keep us organized and moving forward:

The floor is open for barnstar image nominations until 23:59:59 GMT on 24 November 2007. That gives everyone about five days to sharpen their crayons!
One hour and two seconds after nominations close, at 01:00:01 GMT on 25 November 2007, we will start voting utilizing the following guidelines:
- Voting will run for seven days and end at 01:00:01 GMT on 2 December 2007.
- In order to avoid either ties or non-majority winners, we will use instant-runoff voting with each editor ranking their first, second, and third choices.
- Any registered Wikipedia editor who is a WikiProject Ships member can vote.
Depending on the amount of "last minute" voting that takes place, I will announce the first ever WikiProject Ships Barnstar prior to 03:00:00 on 2 December 2007.

However I would like to make a request. As the originator of this proposal and the organizer of our selection process, I would like to be the one to issue our first barnstar award. After that, all members of the project are free to use our new barnstar in order to recognize fellow Wikipedia contributors for their hard work and due diligence on WikiProject Ships! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just under four hours remain to submit nominations! Voting will begin in about five hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominations

General discussion

A question that came into mind when thinking of users who might possibly deserve this barnstar... does a user have to be a WP:SHIPS member in order to recieve "our" barnstar? Or can it be awarded to anyone who improves WP:SHIPS-related articles, even if s/he's not a member? -- Kjet (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that anyone could award the barnstar to any editor who has made a significant contribution to ship articles. With very few exceptions, barnstars are awarded on a very informal standing. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A little over seven hours remain to place your votes! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Election

Guidelines

Voting begins at 01:00:01 GMT on 25 November 2007 utilizing the following guidelines:

Voting runs for seven days and ends at 01:00:01 GMT on 2 December 2007.
To avoid any potential ties or non-majority winners, instant-runoff voting is being used with each editor ranking their first, second, and third choices.
Any registered Wikipedia editor who is a WikiProject Ships member may vote.
Please be sure to follow canvassing guideline when discussing or courting potential voters.

Depending on the amount of "last minute" voting that takes place, I will announce the first ever WikiProject Ships Barnstar prior to 03:00:00 on 2 December 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidates

WikiProject Ships barnstar candidates

Voting

Results

Tabulating voting results now ... --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

An easy win for #13! Congratulations Dual Freq (talk · contribs) for submitting the winning design! All of the members of this project should feel free to use our new barnstar to recognize the outstanding efforts of your fellow editors. Usage instructions are on the template page: {{WikiProject Ships Barnstar}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! but the aqua marine is so ugly (no offense )why??????why??!?!?!?!???? ANOMALY-117 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I montion that we PLEASE hold this in a year and elect a new one? oh and a barnstar that is elelcted may only serve one year without some changes to color or design and the changes must be noticeable or a new design may be elected. does anyone second? ANOMALY-117 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should be required to change the barnstar on a schedule. If a new star is developed in the future and we all agree that it's better, we could certainly change, but we're not going to change every year just for the sake of changing. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but it's the first choice of eight people, and no other star got more than one first choice vote. TomTheHand 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

and yes i do understand your point and i can live with the selection but all i'm saying is that if we don't re-vote every year then can we at least bring this topic up agian on the day the oringanl proposel was brought up. every year so that way people can put in their input or design a new star and if nothing is posted or discussed of real importance than we will close the subjuct on december2 untill this time the following year. (i myself am haveing a little trouble fowlling myself). if that makes any sense. ANOMALY-117 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

so now what?ANOMALY-117 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. I don't like the idea of making an award obsolete. What point would it serve? If we come up with a new version that everyone loves much more than this one, then all well and good, but until then, the people have decided, so to speak. Otherwise it's just change for change's sake. Benea 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). I'm not really into playing around with graphics, but I'm dissatisfied enough with this choice that I might actually try to come up with an alternative myself. Not that I'm planning to do so anytime soon however, as my list of planned Wikiprojects is more than long enough already. Gatoclass 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

i understand what im trying to say that instead of my first idea we instead bring up a new section every year giving people the oppotunite to change or talk about it because some people and new members may not know that they can influence the change of the barnstar and im suggesting that every year we let them know that they can .. uh whats the word..influnece?.. the change of the barnstar. --Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk o contribs) 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything to be gained by continually changing it. It would lose any significance it has if we were to do that. Like Tom says, if another one is created that we all agree is better, then we could consider a change then, but otherwise things would start to get very silly. Martocticvs 12:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above... out of curiosity, who was the first person to recieve our new barnstar? As Kralizec! reserved himself the honour of awarding the first one, I'd be rather interested in knowing who got it.

And on the subject above: we voted. The whole point of voting is to find out which one the majority likes best - and the vast majority of those who bothered to vote obviously preferred the one we got. Changing that because two people don't like it seems exceedingly undemocratic. -- Kjet 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad; thanks for reminding me to share with everyone! I awarded our first barnstar to Maralia. When she first joined the project, she boldly revised the main page (in retrospect, I have no idea why we kept the old, klunky one for so long), got our current assessment drive started, and kept us going at it with lots of encouragement. Maralia has been a great collaborative force for the project, and has done a lot to really reinvigorate the entire project! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just come back from a weekend away, and what a lovely surprise to find upon my return! Thank you for recognizing my little efforts to get more done around here by organizing things and cheerleading. It's not as fun and glamorous as writing articles, but I feel it needs to be done, and it's really gratifying to hear that it's appreciated. Thanks for thinking of me :) Maralia 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorting class articles

After the discussion above, I've begun putting era categories onto class articles. I like the result. See Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States for an example. All the class articles are consolidated at the top and give a nice overview of what was in operation at the time.

I've been working my way along alphabetically, so I just finished Category:Aircraft carrier classes and hit Category:Amphibious assault ship classes. I noticed that Gatoclass has been having class articles sort by type first, and then class name. See Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States for an example. Note all of the "attack cargo ship"s grouped together, and all the "attack transport"s in a separate group.

I had been sorting by class name only, and I think I prefer doing it that way, so that it's one continuous alphabetical list instead of broken up by ship type. However, I don't have strong feelings about it; I just happen to prefer looking at the information that way. I wanted to bring it here and ask for everyone's two cents. I know most people won't feel strongly, but I don't think this is an issue that needs long, logical, passionate arguments, just a quick opinion off the top of your head.

"Too long, didn't read" version:

In era categories like Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States, should we sort class articles alphabetically by name only, or by type and then by name?

I appreciate your input. TomTheHand (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the tl;dr version. I strongly prefer alpha by name; it's easier to remember and easier to browse. Maralia (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try to provide a tl;dr in the future :-P I know I tend to go on and on. TomTheHand (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

thats like a six way cross-refrence!!!!!!!?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. TomTheHand (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Maralia, alpha by name is the simplest, and easiest to browse. -- Kjet (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with alphabetically throughout as well, I think. For the same reason as Kjet. Martocticvs (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY disagree. I tried this in the amphib. section already and it looks very messy. Much better and more logical to have them sorted by alpha AND type. Gatoclass (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I'd also like to remove Attack transport, Landing Ship, Tank, and Attack cargo ship from that region of the category, so you'd only be looking at the names of classes. I think that'd look reasonably clean. TomTheHand (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaaarghh! Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I don't think I have much objection to that. I don't think I put those articles in there, I just ended up sorting them because they were already there. But when you think about it, it doesn't really make much sense to have the "type" articles there, does it? Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Escort aircraft carrier has been renamed as Escort carrier. In this case the category should be renamed too? I'm also not sure if this affects the names of our other aircraft carrier articles. Benea (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Please check out this merge and weigh in. It's related to last week's amphibious warfare vessel merges, but I missed it that time around. Thanks!TomTheHand (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Help please-Sections-article guidelines?

Hello all,

I have been working on articles tagged as needing sections and these articles appear on the list:

~~USS Advance (1850)~~
~~USS Barbey (FF-1088)~~
~~USS Blakely (FF-1072)~~
~~USS Crommelin (FFG-37)~~
~~USS Essex (CV-9)~~
~~USS Grampus (SS-207)~~
~~USS Kennebec (1861)~~
~~USS Nahant (1862)~~
~~[[USS Sassacus (1862)]~~]
~~USS Schofield (FFG-3)~~
~~USS Shark (SS-174)~~
~~USS Talbot (FFG-4)~~
~~USS Tom Green County (LST-1159)~~
~~USS Truett (FF-1095)~~
~~USS Volador (SS-490)~~
~~USS Vreeland (FF-1068)~~

Most of them (but not all, I added the rest) were tagged as being articles relating to the ship project. I would appreciate some help in cleaning them up but first I wanted to ask here if there ares suggestions about what sections would be best (and how they should be organized), sort of a guideline for when future articles are added? Thank you Awotter (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Done

I recently did a cleanup along these lines on USS Chandeleur (AV-10). You might want to take a look at that as an example. Basically I do an "operational history" section with logical subsections for various operations, then I have another main section for postwar/commercial activities (where required). If the ships fought in more than one war, I'd probably have main sections for each war, again with appropriate subsections for different operations. Don't forget to do a ship infobox if the article doesn't have one (like I did for Chandeleur). Gatoclass (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! very good suggestion. Awotter (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Advance needs two sections - to cover each of the two expeditions. I tend to think that summary paragraphs should identify the type and dates of the ship, highlight the notable bits of operational service and state the eventual fate (in this case lost in pack ice) Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's one way of going about it, though I am in two minds about whether it's a good or bad idea to present all the interesting info up front. Doing that sort of thing can suck the joy of discovery out of the article for readers, so I think if it's to be done it has to be done in such a way as to entice the reader rather than deflate his interest.

It's difficult though, to come up with a standard method. Many of the DANFS and government-penned summaries that we rely on are written in a slapdash way, and it's often hard to find appropriate section subheadings for them. It's even harder when you are trying to find a bunch of standardized subheadings you can use across the board for one particular class for consistency. So one has to exercise a little flexibility. Either that or be prepared to do a substantial reorg and rewrite for many of them. Gatoclass 13:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hello everyone! I hope that all members of WP:SHIPS from the U.S. had a happy Thanksgiving... and I hope that everyone else had a very nice Thursday :-) TomTheHand (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, your very kind to ask :) My thanksgiving was very good, and I am looking forward to spending time with the family over the long weekend. Happy Thanksgiving, and hears to many more to come :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My Thursday was very much like any other Thursday, but thanks anyway! :p Martocticvs (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanksgiving was lovely, thanks--much more relaxing than the previous four days, which largely consisted of answering the question 'mommy can we eat the fancy pies yet?' Maralia (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fancy pies ... ? Tell us more! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just visiting, plus a question

I don't belong to this WP, so I thought I would say high, as I've tagged a lot of articles for y'all while doing WP MH's drive, and ask a question. Would Belle of Louisville and Great Steamboat Race fall under WP Ship's concerns?--Bedford (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Belle of Louisville I would say certainly does, the race though I'm not so sure about. Martocticvs (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Boredom

i need work not a huge task but i need something to do anbody have any ideas?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On the front page, at the right side, there's a box with a section called "Things you can do". Check that out. TomTheHand (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yea i did but im no good at spelling and right now im a slow typer with the broken arm and all. nor am i good at grammer but i do like to patrol for vandlism but i have to do it manualy page by page because my mom dosn't want me to download onto her computer so i need people to kinda tell me waht to do for right now. oh and i can argue like nobodys bisnes oh yea i can't spell but i can ram facts and vewis on stuff intill the scream uncle!--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) oh and i can read like really fast... oh and is possible to get your own bot?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) oh and i like the yamato battleship alot --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Anomaly that wasn't meant as a shot at you, I know some people have trouble spelling, and I never make it an issue, it's just that that particular spelling was so weird it kind of gave me a moment of cognitive dissonance. I knew it was wrong but after seeing it I had trouble remembering what the right spelling was :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about hovercraft? I need someone to find some good sources for an article on Air-cushioned landing craft I'm working on. I can take care of the text writing and formatting, but I could use some links of sources to find some material. Interested? - BillCJ (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There are lots of articles needing sources as well as stubs needing material. Googling for sources on obscure items can take ages. Often the material is there but you get swamped by non-relevant search finds. You could google for suitable references - roughly add the facts that you cull from the sources and add a cleanup template to request someone else to tidy up the spelling afterwards. Viv Hamilton 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

finding stuff online has never been a problem for me. its just the formating and other things that take work. but im very good at finding plain old raw information on just about anything. and messing with tags and writing code in the document is to frustrating for me. is their any way to get raw information onto pages without email or violating a law?

however if anybody knows were help is needed in a debate or watching something on this site then let me know ANOMALY-117 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources Has anyone thought of buying books and going to libraries?--Toddy1 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, but I have a long-term illness - can't travel, or work, so no disposable money to buy books. I actually do have a fair book collection, but not much current on hovercraft/LCACs. - BillCJ 16:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I've bought so damn many books to use as Wikipedia sources that people wonder what I'm up to. So do the librarians in the strange little cubbyholes that I visit looking for old-time ship information. Thank heaven I've got The USS Rankin Association to help finance my habit. Lou Sander 14:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got the Sail & Steam Navy List if anyone wants look ups.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

and i uh have or can find or know just about anything on everthing ecxept complex math and science (complex, relative to an average 14 year-old) and i know alot about mislianious stuff. pardon the spelling.ANOMALY-117 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy and Paste Patrol. That is, so many ship articles are missing simple things like templates and info boxes. All you need to do is go around and paste in the missing templates like {{WikiProject Ships}} to talk pages and such. --Brad 11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, copy and paste patrol, no shortage of work there!

Now that you mention it, something that would be really useful would be for someone to go around and replace the squillions of ship articles that have the old Wikimarkup-constructed infoboxes with the newer purpose designed templates. This is a really labour-intensive project, I know because I've done a bit of it myself. But wait, I have an even better idea! What we could really use is for someone with programming skills to write a little program to automate the job. Gatoclass 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to experiment, I went out and found over 20 articles on ships that had no wiki project ship ID. Took only a few minutes to find and label that many. Also found a few more that had no infobox etc. Sometimes the most needed work is the least glamorous and easy work. --Brad 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia

Senin, 22 Januari 2018