Talk:List of cruisers of the United States Navy

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


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


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


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

Images
Although I'm all for images, it's tricky to place them in a two-column list so that they don't lay on top of the list. So I've reverted the additions, in the hopes that someone will figure out how to do this right (I don't know myself). Stan 05:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea no problem, I added the pictures back and changed the formatting as well. Nautical 19:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a side-by-side list, now the images make one half much longer than the other, so it's impossible to see if both lists have the same members, not to mention that the images interrupt the list, making it harder to scan. The images should be floating off to the right, not intruding inline. It's possible that it could be done with a three-column table somehow. Stan 22:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes this is something I didn't like about the current setup either. Im working on ways of having the format be better, such as three column thing, but I have not settled on what to do. Im thinking either moving them off to the far right as you sugest, or perhaps put them in a center column (maybe 40-20-40 percent widths). Nautical 23:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Far right has the advantage that for most people it is currently blank, so you're not "stealing" space that had information in it. Hard part is that some browser windows (such as on PDAs, which I've seen used to look at WP) are rather narrow, and you don't want the images to crowd out the list then. In fairness, the two-column list is somewhat nonstandard, WP has its own syntax for that sort of table now. Stan 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well this is something to consider, all these screen resolutions. I admit I tend to cater to the higher screen resolutions (being what I normally use) and since the trend seems to be towards higher res. I do somtimes rescale the text though to get a better idea of how the formatting goes if when the text must be larger. One idea- how about on the far left as a column? Might be easier to make it line up with the ship names too. Nautical 22:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Cruiser hull" vs "Destroyer hull"
I'd like to make a minor reorganization to the introduction to better clarify the distinctions between the "cruiser hull" ships up through the CGN-9 Long Beach and the later "destroyer hull" ships, with citations from Friedman's Design History series. Thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, 23 July 2021 Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Prinz Eugen war prize
The IX-300 Prinz Eugen is currently embedded in the Heavy and Light Cruiser subsection. While this is true from both a functional and a gun caliber viewpoint, the Prinz Eugen was obviously not part of this sequence of ships, not having been built along with them, and especially since she was not given a CA- number. Can we create a new War prize subsection (possibly after the Alaska class in the Large cruiser subsection) and put it there? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Linking to ship articles that don't exist
This article has many links to ship articles that do not exist because the ship constructions were canceled. In nearly all cases the links get redirected to the article on the class, where information on the cancelled ship can be found in the list of the ships of the class. However, in a few cases there is no information at all because construction was never started, there is only the hull number and possibly a name, which just duplicates the list in this article.

The use of these class links would seem to be the proper approach in the List by name section of the article, because this section has no information on ship classes.

It is questionable that this same approach should be used in the Lists by type section, because in this section the canceled ships are arranged by hull number, and therefore indirectly by class. This means that there is usually a link to the class article, followed by a list of ships; if these ships are cancelled they also link to the class article, often over and over. The greatest example is the Fargo class.

In the interest of avoiding duplicate links these canceled ships' links should be removed. Agreed?Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

MoS: Inappropriate use of boldface
A contributor recently removed all boldface that had been used to signify that a ship had been in combat. I have (as a neophyte) now read over the MOS and have concluded that this contributor was correct in objecting to this misuse. However, I would like to respect the original intent of the contributors who created this situation and see if another means can be developed to flag a ship on these lists as a combat veteran, possibly with a single character, much as the cross † denotes a war loss in this article. I have temporarily reverted this contributor's change to preserve the combat info until this can be resolved. Thoughts?Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You probably should flag it up at WP:Ships and WP:MilHist to get more eyes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Was gonna suggest just that. Wider audience of people with an interest in this subject. -  wolf  21:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Never heard of this. How is it done? I would assume WP has a document on how to do it? OTOH, this is really a simple albeit creative format issue, and so if anyone pinged has a 'good enough' idea why not throw it out? We might not need to cast a wide net.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just go to WT:SHIPS (talk page for the Ships WikiProject) and WT:MILHIST (talk page for the Military History WikiProject) and copy your post over there. Easy-peasy. -  wolf  22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It may be easier or simpler to use another symbol (e.g. #, %, ^, +, etc.) for combat instead of bold formatting. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I may have a solution. The character ⚔ would seem to satisfy all of our needs. If there are no objections I will add this character to the combat ships and remove the boldface.


 * Sometimes we just have to take a step back and sleep on it to see the answer. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of space on each line, as easy and more informative to write "served in WWI", or "served in Pacific in WWII". Equally can write against losses content like "sunk following damage at Battle of the Coral Sea, 8 May 1942". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't see the benefit of doing this at all, firstly shouldn't we have a RS to state which were in combat and secondly define in combat - is having a submarine torpedo which missed fired at it sufficient or must the ship have undertaken some offensive action itself. I see the whole thing as fraught with disagreement. The information is available on the individual ship pages. If it's felt that the information is of value here I don't like the idea of little symbols, sort of thing you get in coffee table books not encyclopedias. Oh and putting it in boldface is not only against MOS but is like a secret code Lyndaship (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * firstly shouldn't we have a RS... What, may I ask, is an RS? The information is available on the individual ship pages. Agreed, and so there is no need to get verbose about it, a list should avoid duplicating the linked articles as much as possible. OTOH, previous contributors did see this as worthy of some kind of flagging, so that the reader might be motivated to click on specific individual ship pages. I'm generally in favor of honoring the intentions of prior contributors (other than factual inaccuracies) unless the majority decide otherwise.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An RS is a reliable source per WP:RELIABLE. If you mean each ship's Wikipedia article, that's not good enough since wiki pages are user generated. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and besides that we have Lyndaship's point re secondly define in combat: I noticed just today that a few ships not boldfaced in this article were not in combat per their Wiki articles but did engage in combat patrols in which no combat happened. Seems very subjective. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't even need to post at wt:ships, it looks like most of the ole' gang is right here. And for the record, I agree with Lyndaship's points (as I almost always do). Cheers -  wolf  18:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Ships has 140 named particpants, WP:Milhist has 870 (yes nearly nine hundred). That's a lot more eyes on a subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've spent a lot of time weighing the pros and cons and I didn't come up with anything that seemed good enough to bother WP:Ships or WP:Milhist, until now. Besides the issues we have kicked around, I've also been concerned with the fact that this is a list and that lists need to be concise. Last night it hit me: if the list includes the count of battle stars awarded to a ship then that not only tells if the ship was in combat but also the magnitude of the combat. So for example this list:


 * (CL/CA-26) Northampton † (1930)
 * (CL/CA-27) Chester (1930)
 * (CL/CA-28) Louisville (1931)
 * (CL/CA-29) Chicago † (1931)
 * (CL/CA-30) Houston † (1930)
 * (CL/CA-31) Augusta (1931)

would change to:
 * (CL/CA-26) Northampton (1930), 6 battle stars, sunk
 * (CL/CA-27) Chester (1930), 11 battle stars
 * (CL/CA-28) Louisville (1931), 13 battle stars
 * (CL/CA-29) Chicago (1931), 3 battle stars, sunk
 * (CL/CA-30) Houston (1930), 2 battle stars, sunk
 * (CL/CA-31) Augusta (1931), 3 battle stars

Now I have something worth posting at WP:Ships and WP:Milhist. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, made changes as proposed, all boldface removed. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Zumwalt class destroyer reclassification
In the March 2023 issue of Naval Institute Proceedings a proposal was made by an amateur naval historian to reclassify the Zumwalt-class destroyers as cruisers. Since this author had no official standing with the US Navy it seems inappropriate to include this proposal in this article, but it does seem appropriate that it not be forgotten, and so it is included here. Below is the applicable text:


 * Redesignate DDG-1000, -1001, and -1002 to CG-74 through -76. The use of 1000 had some loose alignment with the Kidd-class destroyers (DDG-993 through -996) and the final Spruance-class destroyer, the USS Hayler (DD-997). However, the Zumwalts are far larger than the Kidd- and Spruance-class destroyers and their Ticonderoga-class cruiser derivative, and their new surface strike role is more befitting a traditional cruiser designation.

Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)