Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy/Archive 2

SBX-1
The Sea-based X-band Radar (SBX-1) was apparently transferred to the control of Sealift Command. Anyone know why it's not listed? And... should it be? - the WOLF  child  05:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Turns out it should be added. - the WOLF  child  07:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

✅

DDG-121
Please see discussion here regarding the new name for this ship. - the WOLF  child  19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Update
After doing a major cleanup and update of List of Military Sealift Command ships, I found that the "Non-Commissioned" and "Support" tables here were missing several ships. I added them, hence all the additions today and, unfortunately, the red-links. Hopefully some editors will pitch in and create some articles, or stubs at least, for those ships and classes ("Submarine and Special Warfare Support vessel" needs as page, it's only a re-direct right now, and "Crew & Support vessel" needs a page as well). The list of Strategic Sealift Ships needs a major overhaul, and that will likely affect this page, especially the "Ready Reserve Force" and "Support" tables. If anyone feels like giving that a go... that would be great. - the WOLF  child  10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of "PCU" as prefix
I can find no reliable sources to support the assertion that any U.S. Navy ships are "designated" with "PCU" prior to commissioning, or that PCU is a "prefix". The Naval History and Heritage Command expressly states the opposite, that prior to commissioning a U.S. Navy vessel has no prefix:

The term "pre-commissioning unit" appears to be used as a descriptor, but not part of the vessel's name or title. In addition, the inclusion of "PCU" appears to violate WP:COMMONNAME since pre-commissioned vessels are never referred to in common usage in this manner. Please see the WikiProject: Military History discussion page on this topic, and join the discussion there if you disagree. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How hard did you look? This is per the United States Navy Official Website; "Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)". Just sayin'... (This may have been me as well. - the WOLF  child  )

Pueblo
Is there a reason USS Pueblo is excluded from this list? &mdash; Ipoellet (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some IP user came along and removed a bunch of ships... no explanation given. Some of these changes were obviously in error. Just another reason for mandatory registration, so random nobodies will stop coming in, shitting all over the place, and then leaving with no redress. (I added this reply months ago, seems I didn't sign it - the WOLF  child  )

Stats
Guys, if you're adding, removing or otherwise changing the status of ships, can you please update the corresponding totals at the top of the page? (Apparently me again - the WOLF  child  )

USS Dallas Dispute
Remember that we use the Naval Register to get the status of all ships. It is currently listed as Active, In Commission (26 May 2017) and its status will be updated as close to the naval register update as possible. Despite news of it becoming a part of the reserve fleet I believe it should only be update per the Naval Vessel Register. --Phuerbin (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Editor Phuerbin and IP Editor 182.130.236.51. Do not continue with your edit war at List of current ships of the United States Navy.  You have a dispute.  Resolve that dispute here before you resume editing the list.  I have protected the list for a period of three days so that only administrators may edit it.  I hope by doing so that you will discuss your dispute rather than edit war with each other.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with trappist the monk. My position is that we should only update ships status when the naval register updates their status as it is more official than news saying that it is going to be decommissioned or moved to the reserve fleet. --Phuerbin (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to your request, even if when United States Navy News Service or other U.S. Government and contractor official press release update information (Including any date in ship life), Naval Vessel Register dates are not updated, would you still be update per the Naval Vessel Register?  182.130.236.51 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.117 (talk)
 * If nobody respond to my question, I will think mostly people agree with me. Moreover, this is list of current ships of the United States Navy, not list of current ship dates and information of Naval Vessel Register. (despite Naval Vessel Register is major references in the list)  182.130.236.51 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.117 (talk)

In United States Navy tradition and/or explanation of related terms, christened is not equal to launched, delivered is not equal to commissioned, inactivated is not equal to decommissioned. I have moved inactivated ships to Reserve Fleet from Commissioned, but Phuerbin restored my edits again and again, just because of they weren't decommissioned. (as I said before, inactivated is not equal to decommissioned) Why this list was controlled by ignorant and arrogant man? 182.130.236.51 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.117 (talk)

I undo your edits due to lack of sources and ships you move to the reserve are listed active in commission. If you go to NVR you can ships such as USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 are listed with a note it is inactive and in reserves. Since the register updates weekly and ship pages are updated as needed we can use NVR as a reliable citation. In addition, 182.130.236.51 I would appreciate you not to insult me and maintain a professional attitude. --Phuerbin (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

IP user I would prefer you only to change status of ships with sources with the word official or something along those lines in it. This source can either be NVR or some other source. I do not want to be banned from editing this page or worse permanently banned. Please respond. --Phuerbin (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is a list, you can look at ship article(s) in Wikipedia when you want to learning about related ship details, don't need add additional unnecessary source for ships in Current ships section in the list. Secondly, I think you still don't understood the meaning of inactivated. I've said the inactivated is not equal to decommissioned. When a United States Navy ship was inactivated, that the ship is not in active duty rather than decommissioned. Finally, you thought I'm insulting you, but your behavior have validated what I said. Besides, I felt not bad about myself for my professional attitude, here.  182.130.236.51 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.213.63 (talk)

Inactivation of a ship is a process with updates in status as it moves along. A simple google search will show the projected Inactivation date for USS Dallas is June 15th i.e. out of commission. --Phuerbin (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * According to United States Navy explained, inactivation stand for out of service (or not in active duty) and the out of service is not equal to the out of commission. In addition, I have repeated many times about the meaning of inactivation, I don't want to continue it. When can you understand the meaning of inactivation?  182.130.236.51 (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.126 (talk)

I fully understand the meaning of inactivation and it actually has to officially reach that status with NVR or some other official source to back it up (i.e. not a newspaper). NVR is the official document to what a ship status is and since it updates weekly we will at most have a 1 week delay on changing a ship's status. I don't understand why you can't accept this process. Now according NVR feel free to move USS Dallas into the reserves as it has an official source to back it up. USS Buffalo is still Active, In commission. --Phuerbin (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some date and information on NVR is not only one week delay, but delayed for over half a year even approximately one year, such as decommissioned of formerly USS Houston (SSN-713), launched of future USS Colorado (SSN-788) and keel laid of future USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG-121). As for USS Buffalo (SSN-715), its inactivated information is based on Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System news on 26 May 2017.  182.130.236.51 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.126 (talk)

Good catches on these older ships such as USS Houston, Colorado and Frank E. Petersen Jr. just be sure to cite these changes. However, USS Dallas was projected to deactivated on 15 June 2017 and the NVR updated the next day with its updated status. The USS Buffalo is not set to get its inactive status changed till 17 Sep 2017 so until this date it technically retains its Active, In commission status. ref this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phuerbin (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already said that you can look at ship article(s) in Wikipedia when you want to learning about related ship details in Current ships section in the list, don't need add additional unnecessary source for ships in the section. The deactivate dates that you offered, both of them are planned dates in 2016. Actually, USS Dallas (SSN-700) arrived at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on 22 May 2017 with USS Buffalo (SSN-715) arrived on 26 May 2017, then commence their inactivation process respectively. The inactivated date of USS Dallas (SSN-700) on NVR has not been updated as you said. (I'm visited the NVR reference in the list) Lastly, I want to know why you are so bigoted and conceited?  182.130.236.51 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.50 (talk)
 * Actually, one cannot use Wikipedia articles for verification; that would violate WP:CIRC, Wikipedia is not a source unto itself. Please also read WP:NPA and confine your comments to edits, not editors.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If you managed to look pass the first 3 ships would notice that dates are for 2017. According to naval protocol a ship maintains its commission status as its waiting to be inactivated. The USS Dallas has been updated as I said go to Ships->Fleet Size->In commission->SSN-668->SSN-700. The internet browser you use may be out of date or unable to read what is on the naval register. The USS Buffalo's Wikipedia page marks that it is in service. Now if you cited this to an naval document and not a newspaper then i would believe you. I don't want to be banned again! --Phuerbin (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System is one of official website of United States Armed Forces, I have no idea if you don't believe it, but STOP your disrupted edits to the list, or you're responsible for all the consequences of your action. Thanks.  182.130.236.51 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.130.237.50 (talk)

I am well aware its an official website but it has the cadence of a news letter and not an official navy document. While they may say a ship is decommissioned or inactivated it does not mean it has been officially decommissioned or inactivated. --Phuerbin (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

Guys, relax...
The NVR is the primary source for this page. Even if a ship is listed as "inactive", if it is still currently commissioned, then it is listed as a "current" ship. The inactivation can be noted in the notes column. Once a ship has been officially decommissioned, then it is removed from the "current" list, and moved to another list on the page if appropriate. User 182.130.237.50 aka 182.130.236.51, you need to get yourself in check and read the policies and guidelines of this project, which you are repeatedly violating. At least twice you posted crass, juvenile insults that have no place here. The edit-warring also needs to stop. I hate to break it to you (and Phuerbin) but this page was doing just fine before you c8ame along. There is a dedicated group of wikipedians that keep all the entries up to date and we don't need anything drastically changed just because either of you say so. If you want changes, propose them here and seek consensus. (and by the way, silence does NOT imply agreement). Otherwise... relax. is all this grief really worth it? - the WOLF  child  22:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree on that. - Phuerbin (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Images
So just FYI, when you do a big fancy table it's usually a good idea to check it with a few different screen resolutions and on mobile. Long story short, tables and images don't mix. I know it looks great on your nice HD wide screen monitor, but on narrow resolutions, the images get pushed below the table, and you get... meh... 18 inches of white space between tables with the images stacked right aligned. On mobile the images display all in a stack prior to the table, and the reader has to scroll through a dozen random images in no particular order before the table even starts.

While there's no way of knowing what resolution it's being viewed at from PC, it's definitely getting about 1,000 steady views per day on mobile. So that should probably be fixed ASAP. You can try incorporating the images into cells in the table itself and see how that works, or you can change from a table to a bulleted list, or you can just severely trim down the images so that there are no more than a couple of them in each section. Up to you guys, but I would definitely fix it. Timothy Joseph Wood 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I use WP on my mobile all the time and this page seems fine to me. - the WOLF  child  23:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

About User:Phuerbin's edits
I found this page was OK before Phuerbin came alone, and Phuerbin joined, (on 12 May 2017) everything go bad. In addition, I also found some dates is incorrect in Phuerbin edits, for example, there are only 63 destroyers (62 Arleigh Burke-class and one Zumwalt-class, John Finn is waiting for commission) in commission so far, but Phuerbin said 64 in commission. All of those making this page inferior, should we stop Phuerbin edit to this page? RJDZVYR (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You've only been here since June 23, 2017. But if you both don't stop this continuous edit warring, you'll both end up blocked. - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have edit this page since last year and Phuerbin continuous edits to this page. Now, you said that I'm engagement in edit warring? RJDZVYR (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had reached a consensus that NVR was the primary source for listing commissioned ships. I was simply fixing that error. USS John Finn is listed as in commission. The only time I make updates are when NVR updates. --Phuerbin (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree on this measure by RJDZVYR? --Phuerbin (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Following primary source is good, but primary source does not mean sole source to this page. The this page is a real-time dynamic list, not your NVR list or the mirror list of NVR. In addition, the one who are concerned about the news know that, John Finn to be commissioned in Peral Harbor on 15 July 2017 local time, thus your "simply fixing that error" is actually unruliness. If you continue your such behavior, it will only proven that your edits just for the disrupt. RJDZVYR (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. And this page is not a news site. If a ship is commissioned at 17:00 hrs, it doesn't need to be listed as such here at 17:01 the same day with a questionable ref in support. For those of us that have been maintaining this page for years, we find that going by the NVR is just fine. You guys have been told before... relax. Take your bickering and edit warring elsewhere, or you'll both be reported and likely blocked. - the WOLF  child  04:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Solution
--Tempest717 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. NVR will remain as the main reference for this page
 * 2. Any changes that go against NVR must have a reputable reference (for example an official document)
 * 3. Any disputes should be settled here in talk as to avoid an edit war
 * # 1 & #3 work for me. For #2, any change that conflicts with the NVR better include multiple, reliable sources, at least one of which is straight from the Navy itself. Otherwise, the NVR info stands. - the WOLF  child  04:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sub-section name change
I have changed the name of the sub-section "Planned ships" to "Ordered ships". It makes sense since, when new classes are announced, the number of ships intended to be built is also announced, and we invariably denote that in the class's article as the number of 'planned' ships. But we don't list all those potential ships as entries here on the "Planned" list. Instead, we have only been adding them once they're confirmed as being ordered and we have a ref to attach confirming it. It's a minor change, and sensible one, so I can't imagine anyone having a legitimate gripe about it, but this is Wikipedia, so you never know. If anyone has a concern about this, speak up and we can discuss it here. Cheers - the WOLF  child  04:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Updates
or ... (whichever), do not remove ships from the "Commissioned" list if the NVR is still showing them as "Active, In Commission". I realize that with boats like the Jacksonville, which have recently gone into stand down and are preparing for decommissioning and nuclear deactivation, it seems like they should be shown as no longer active and therefore moved, But, these are lengthy processes, they take a loooong time. There is no rush to move entries from one table to the next. Wait until the entry in the NVR has been updated, and then we can update the article as well. Also, per WP:BRD, one your changes have been reverted, do not revert them again. That is basically the beginning of an edit-war. And, when you're editing, could you please use the "preview" button? You made a dozen consecutive edits, some confusing, most with problems with markup and not a single edit summary, this makes it difficult for other editors to check your changes. Please follow the policies and guidelines here. Thanks - the WOLF  child  12:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Disregard, it seems both of these accounts have been banned for socking and persistent disruption, (edit wars, etc). Also blocked at the same time was an IP address that possibly appears to be the same person using these accounts, as well as some other IP addresses, all from the same town on the other side of the world. If this person returns, especially to any of these pages, I hope they can be more cooperative, communicative and edit according to the policies and guidelines. Any questions, feel free to ask. - the WOLF  child  10:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

USS Portland Updated
Update around 3:50 was completed to add USS Portland LPD-27. --Tempest717 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

minor layout change
On this article we have the tables and then the sections listing out ship types and their numbers, per group. As it was, these sections were split into 2 groups, one near the top, right after the lead, the other further down, just above 'future ships'. I have now grouped them as one single section, placed at the bottom, immediately following the tables. This makes the article easier to follow, as now the reader has the lead take them right into the tables, which contain the lists they came here for. The 'fleet totals' section, at the bottom, is more organized, with some minor markup it looks cleaner and it is now easier to follow. Other than the reader, this makes it easier for editors to maintain. With all the totals in one section, its quicker and easer for updating, and it make it less likely for some to forget to update the totals. If anyone has any feedback, let me know, Thanks - the WOLF  child  10:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI
The NVR currently shows the Los Angeles-class submarine submarines USS La Jolla (SSN-701) and USS San Francisco (SSN-711) as "In Commission, Special" on their individual entry pages (see here & here). They are currently inactive and being converted to MTS trainings ships. The NVR does not count these among their active/in commission boats, (see here) so even though there is no decommission date for them yet, they are being treated as such by the Navy, and so we'll do the same here. I'm posting this in the hopes of avoiding any future discrepancies or disputes. - the WOLF  child  22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

USS Mount Whitney
USS Mount Whitney is a USS ship commissioned but it is under the Military Sealift Command. http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/ships.asp?ship=128 Place as edit? Sammartinlai (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is exactly you're asking for. but USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20), like all commissioned ships, is listed here on the "Commissioned Ships" table. Same as the two sub tenders, USS Emory S. Land (AS-39) and USS Frank Cable (AS-40). MSC has primary responsibility for these ships (which can change depending on deployment), so they are also listed at List of Military Sealift Command ships. We don't have a policy prohibiting dual-listing like this. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  09:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm indicating that Mount Whitney is under the MSC but is also a USS. If you check the link and google around it is true. So I was wondering if the distinction should be made in the info box.Sammartinlai (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm indicating that Mount Whitney is under the MSC but is also a USS - Yes, while this isn't common, is it not entirely unusual. And I don't have to check any links, I believe you, I already knew Mount Whitney was under MSC. If you're referring to the infobox for her specific article to "make a distinction", I don't think it's necessary, as MSC is already quite prominently noted in the opening sentence of the article's lead. I don't see a need to make any changes, anywhere in regards to this, but if you have any other ideas or suggestions, feel to post. I have one question however... how come you are posting this here on this talk page, instead of Mount Whitney's talk page? Just curious. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  06:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I changed the USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20)'s page to reflect it is both: a MSC ship and USN ship. I rest my case if you and others don't see a need to change.Sammartinlai (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that you changed it. I also know when you changed it. I basically have the entire US Navy on my watchlist. What I don't know, exactly, is just what it is you are seeking here. I think there may be an ESL issue and I'm trying to work with you here. Can you try explaining just what changes you would like to see made, and where you'd like to se them made... we'll try starting with that. Help me help you. Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

names from nvr data
This page makes extensive use of. The data that that template uses to form the url is held by Module:NVR/data. That module lists the ship name that is associated with a hull designator. We have not used any of the name data. But, I noticed that on this page, we make extensive use of the template's title to hold the ship name:

It occurred to me this morning that we might get Module:NVR to handle the name and formatting like this:

Also, because there are quite a few as-yet-unnamed ships in the construction queue, those require a different form:

And then, for completeness, there may be time when we want the name and the hull-designator:

If title has a value, name is ignored:

nh works but doesn't work for Constitution, Maine, and Texas (because these ships don't have hull designators):

When name is omitted or empty, the template returns a url as it did previously:

I have not added this functionality to the service craft part of Module:NVR pending acceptance of this.

Keep? Don't keep? Opinions? Comments? Suggestions? (I have though that it might be good to add prefix so that a whole name with prefix could be rendered)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ttm, if you believe this is an improvement and think it's the way we should go, then you have my !vote. Cheers - wolf  16:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not for me to say, I don't spend my time here maintaining this list. If you and other editors here think it a useful improvement, great.  If not, I can revert without any sense of loss.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I improve to more sub-tables?
Hi, when i look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships, and compare to this site, the Russian one looks far better because it is divided more. This makes it far easier to research the information and know how much the US navy has of each type of ship.

Am I allowed to change it to more sub-tables? It doesn't make sense for me to have it this way. It is far harder for a READER to get any sense of that big table of all the commissioned ships. That's at least how it was for me. I already made an attempt; I felt it became much better, but it got reverted because I didn't ask.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeanTest (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ).
 * I could be ok with either the single table version of this article or a version that looks like List of active Russian Navy ships. I don't like the version that you apparently prefer – too many tables of different widths, none of which retained the sorting functionality of the original.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I was about to do what you're talking about. I didn't like that they didnt line up. I was gonna try to change it today. But you have to admit it is harder to get a hold of stuff here compared to the Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeanTest (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ).
 * Perhaps what you should do it copy the contents of the entire article to User:LeanTest/sandbox. There you can do whatever you'd like to the article's formatting without disruption.  When you have a solution that you think works, comeback here to discuss.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok i'll try that. Sorry, new to wiki edits:) LeanTest (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Should I upload the improvement when I am done? I think you're the only one who has read the wish for change here. Currently done, think it looks awesome:) LeanTest (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have these comments:
 * if you look at List of active Russian Navy ships you will see that the columns in all of the tables are the same width, table-to-table. That kind of consistency is appealing; if at all possible, columns should be wide enough that on a wide monitor, content doesn't wrap to a new line.
 * omit USS from names in the Ship name column; this from WP:NCSHIPS which says in part: "The prefix need not be given if it is obvious from context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS")";  →   → USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
 * per MOS:HEADINGS, no links in section headings
 * per MOS:DTAB, tables should have captions; this might be a good place to link ship type
 * I see no need for hull designation abbreviations (SSN, SSBN, SSGN) in the three submarine section headings
 * ship images belong at the top of the section to which the ship belongs, not at the bottom of the preceding section
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

1. I agree 2. I agree 3. OK 4. OK 5. I like it this way, the Russian one also has it. Can change it if you insist. 6. Don't you want the picture next to the type it is, like the Russian? Or do you want all pictures at the top? LeanTest (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3. I did not mean to suggest that section headings should go away, just that they should not be linked. Including the headings, I think, is an aid to reader navigation.  Alternatively, you could place anchors at the top of each table and then create a pseudo toc at the top of  to link to the various tables.
 * 5. At the Russian list, the tables for submarines do not have hull designation abbreviations so there, on that page, it makes some sense to include them as indicators of ship type for comparison to other navies. At User:LeanTest/sandbox (and List of current ships of the United States Navy), the Hull no. column in the tables has the hull designation abbreviations.  Including hull designation abbreviations in the section headings and / or table captions is, I think, needlessly redundant.
 * 6. Now that you've removed section headings, this point may be moot. But, if you restore section headings (I think you should), then I think that everything related to that section heading belongs in that section; that includes the image.  In the Russian list, images associated with the table are place directly below the table in a gallery and all within the related section.  In User:LeanTest/sandbox, where the table width is constrained, images go on the right and should render at the top of the section – top of the image adjacent to the top of the table.  Editors who edit the section, and not the whole page, should be presented with all of the section's content.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

6. OK, there's a slight problem with aligning the picture to the right's top to top with the table. If I have a caption, the picture will align to the caption, and not the table itself. Drop captions? LeanTest (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3, 4, & 6: As I write this, what you have is this:
 * There is no caption there and you are back to linked headings; don't do that. This should look more like:
 * Image of the aircraft carrier is in the aircraft carrier section; table has a caption which is part of the table. Yeah, they don't appear to line up exactly but we shouldn't 'fix' either the table or the image position with css because no doubt, the wikitable class will change and the 'fix' won't anymore.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Image of the aircraft carrier is in the aircraft carrier section; table has a caption which is part of the table. Yeah, they don't appear to line up exactly but we shouldn't 'fix' either the table or the image position with css because no doubt, the wikitable class will change and the 'fix' won't anymore.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

How about now(image with aircraft carrier). The tables are also now matching eachother LeanTest (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except for the <big ></big> in the headings ... MOS:HEADINGS again:
 * Do not wrap headings in markup, which may break their display and also cause additional accessibility issues.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What about now, does it look good? LeanTest (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Better. To make a wikilink plural, instead of writing:
 * write:
 * → Ballistic missile submarines
 * Further, we don't label the section as 'Nuclear aircraft carriers' (even though they all are) so, it seems to me that  doesn't need that extraneous labeling; 'Attack submarines' is sufficient.  All tables need labels so the table in  also needs a label.
 * Images for the various sections?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Images for the various sections?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There you go! :) LeanTest (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. I presume that you will add images for the rest of the sections?  It occurs to me that short sections or sections with multiple images  will benefit from the addition of  at the bottom of those sections so that the image(s) in one section don't encroach on the following section.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I would like to add more pictures, but the question remains; is this page worthy enough to be used? LeanTest (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the tables in §§Non-commissioned, Support, and Ready Reserve Force ships? Shouldn't these also be split? I suspect that the table in §Reserve fleet and the tables in §Future ships may not need to be split.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing it one table at a time. Therefore I was gonna do it on a later date. The commissioned was the one that needed sub tables the most, being the biggest and clunky of them. LeanTest (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suspect that you will be reverted because the article will not look good with §Commissioned having the new form while the other sections retain the old form. This is why I suggested that you should copy the contents of the article (emphasis added) to your sandbox. That way, the article, when and if the switch happens, always has a uniform presentation.
 * I don't want you to be discouraged, but I think that you will be more likely to succeed if you switch the whole article from old form to new form in one step. Make sure that you monitor changes to the live article and incorporate them into your sandbox as they occur so that you don't get reverted because new text here disappeared at the switch-over.  Yeah, it is a pain, sometimes, to make big changes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be annoying indeed. Uploading the change to see. LeanTest (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

– The current article List of United States Navy ships exists only to provide template:United States Navy ship types, as stated by the article itself. That's not the purpose of WP articles. I therefore suggest moving this article to List of United States Navy ships and overwrite/delete the current article. Template:United States Navy ship types can be added to the section United States Navy and this article, and the reaming content of List of United States Navy ships can be incorporated into this article or United States Navy#Ships. I also suggest moving List of currently active United States military watercraft to List of active United States military watercraft, as 'currently' is just utterly superfluous. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 22:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * List of current ships of the United States Navy → List of United States Navy ships
 * List of currently active United States military watercraft → List of active United States military watercraft


 * Partial Support. The title List of United States Navy ships implies all ships, past and present, so regardless of other issues, I think it's inappropriate to move the List of current ships of the United States Navy to that title. One is a comprehensive list of all active ships, while the other is really a list of lists, so it probably doesn't make sense to merge the two either (though perhaps there is a way to do so that makes sense). If you were looking for a cleaner title, perhaps List of active United States Navy ships or List of current United States Navy ships?
 * I agree List of currently active United States military watercraft is a poor title. However, the title should somehow reflect that this is a list of classes/types and not individual ships, in contrast to the above. So perhaps something like List of current types of United States military watercraft or List of current types of watercraft of the United States military? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I very well get your point, but the thing is readers don't want a 100 articles on the same subject and one could easily believe that United States Navy ships, List of United States Navy ships, List of current ships of the United States Navy, List of currently active United States military watercraft are all the same.


 * A list of lists is not a (real) article and however the outcome of this requested move may be, I think the current article List of United States Navy ships should definitely go. To rename this article List of current/active United States Navy ships would be misleading, since the article has a "future ships" section. If there is a list of former Navy ships it can be incorporated into this article or kept as a separate article, witch a header note on this article saying something like
 * But I still think this article should be moved to List of United States Navy ships, to keep it as simple as possible for readers (and since this is exactly what readers expect to find on an article called "List of United States Navy ships").
 * List of currently active United States military watercraft lists the amount of current ships a class has, and since United States Navy ships already covers most Navy ship classes, I don't think renaming the article to something that includes the words "classes" or "types" would be such a good idea. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * List of currently active United States military watercraft lists the amount of current ships a class has, and since United States Navy ships already covers most Navy ship classes, I don't think renaming the article to something that includes the words "classes" or "types" would be such a good idea. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Layout
, discussions relating to this article take place here, like I have already said. Considering you are constantly reverting edits, based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is most definitely you, per WP:EDITWAR who is instigating this. Please outline your arguments for not changing the layout on this page. SmartyPants22 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to changing the layout of this page, I just hope you can move all sections to the new layout in one edit prior to change it, rather than making it into a semifinished article. UBQITOSW (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ship status
is regards to this edit, denoting of ship's as being "under construction" is not done on NVR status alone, but when the ships's keel has been laid. fyi - wolf  09:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Update tag
today you added an update tag; "" Can you expand on/clarify this? Which totals are incorrect? And which cited doc are you referring to? This will make it easier to correct (unless you were planning to fix this yourself). -  wolf  23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's only one document cited in the Fleet totals section: a list of active, in commission vessels on the Naval Vessel Register website. :-) Some of the category counts in the article didn't match the counts in the NVR, so I just updated them and removed the tag. Stephen Hui (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply and the effort to improve the page. Looking at the numbers though, there appears to be a problem. The NVR is an important source, but the numbers on it do not match up with some other reliably sourced numbers we have. For example, it lists only a single DDG-1000 as "active in commission", but we know that the number is actually two. Same as the DDG-51 class, it states 68 hulls, but we have 69 listed. That's as far as I've looked right now. Likely everything will have to be counted again, and checked against individual articles. If I get a chance to do it I will, (though I'm not sure when), you could do it if you like, or perhaps one of the other editors thats watches and helps maintains this page will do it. Either way, it needs to be done and I'm sure it likely will be. Cheers -  wolf  05:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

APL links
Currently, most or all of the links to vessels with the prefix APL- redirect to the page for Barracks ship as opposed to a page for the specific vessel. the link is also present in the class section. Would redlinks be the more appropriate for the first column?---EngineeringEditor (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:USNS 1st Lt. Baldomero Lopez
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * this is just a list, there really isn't anything from that article that can be incorprated into this page. That said, I've cleaned up that draft some, and it can probably be moved into mainspace now. - w o lf  20:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, there is already an article for this ship. - w o lf  20:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kvng ::@Thewolfchild Thank you for reminding me about my old draft. As Wolf said, there is not much to add besides the commissioning date and homeport. However, taking those actions would most likely entail doing the same for every vessel under the non-commissioned category.
 * I'll work on updating the existing article as well.
 * GGOTCC (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-commissioned (USNS) ships have all the same milestones as commissioned (USS) ships except for a "commissioned date", instead they should have an "in service date". Home ports are not noted in non-commissioned infoboxes (USNS, RV, MV, SS, etc.), but some may noted in the article body. In the future, any discussion regarding an article, should really be on either the article's own talk page, or the article creator's own user talk page. This talk page is for discussing this article. (pinging ) - w o lf  11:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild, I didn't find USNS 1st Lt. Baldomero Lopez because this list doesn't link directly to it. Should it? @GGOTCC, do you want to incorporate any material from your draft there? ~Kvng (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should have. I've now corrected that, but other corrections and updates are needed, on other tables on this page, and related pages, such as Strategic sealift ships. If someone else doesn't do it, then if I have time to at some point, I'll try and sort everything out. (Also, I watch this talk page so no pings are needed.) - w o lf  14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

fleet totals
Every so often I think that the data in should be automated. Doing that would prevent math errors so the data would be as correct as the tables in the preceding sections. For example, the totals listed in the article for §Under construction (54) and §On order (33) appear to be incorrect. So I have written a small lua module to accomplish the automation; its rendering can be seen in the collapsed section.

You will see that there are differences. The notes about Constitution and Pueblo are not present; I think that that information is better placed in the Notes column of their entries in. There are no (of X) annotations because, frankly, I don't think that they are important. The 'Current as of &lt;date>' note is missing because the accounting is always current as of the date of the article's last edit. The module uses the display name from a complex wikilink so the §Non-commissioned and §Support sections list S.A.S.W.S Vessel instead of Submarine and special warfare support vessel. For me, I don't like S.A.S.W.S Vessel and think that that shortening should go away (unless it is an official USN shortening – but the style of it seems odd to me).

If kept, I will turn the  that does the work into a template, perhaps. Is there a better name?

Keep? Discard? Is there something in the rendering that I missed? Other eyes can often see what I did not see...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Every once in awhile I check the numbers because I know they'll be off, but manually counting almost 600 entries is pain in the ass, so if you can automate the process, that would be great. As for the items you mentioned, the "of X" was added becuase there are the same type of ships in more than one table, and the SASWS ships were abbreviated because the name is long and looked cramped in the table cell, but I don't think either item is particularly important. Thanks for code. - w o lf  01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what are the rules for N (of M)? Does that annotation apply to all ship types regardless of 'classification' (commissioned, non-commissioned, support, ready reserve, reserve, under construction, on order) or is it limited to only those ship types in the classification where that annotation currently appears in the article (non-commissioned, support, ready reserve, reserve)?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added N (of M) annotation to all ship types/classifications.
 * Keep? Discard?  Do it differently?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Iirc, the totals didn't include under construction & on order because those numbers aren't included in the grand total or the ≈ number of ships noted in the lead. Cheers - w o lf  04:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok tweaked.
 * I notice that there are duplicates. While the module renders the display portion of a wikilink, to do the counting it uses the whole wikilink so it finds:
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * It seems to me that the list should use one or the other consistently, probably the redirect form because these ship types should match the ship type parameter in the associated templates (for Large harbor tug, the  templates use  ; for Oceanographic research ship,  uses both   and  ).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. - w o lf  18:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the list a bit and replaced the Fleet totals section with.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Cheers - w o lf  16:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have hacked the module so that it will return the number of 'active' ships rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. I chose 5 for simplicity and so that I didn't have to make a choice about rounding xx5 up or down: ←1234|5|6789→.
 * This has been implemented in the article leed.
 * I will make a further change so that the number of planned ships can also be automated using the same multiple-of-5 rule.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And done:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Ttm, just wanted to confirm; the totals for 'on order' and 'under construction' are or are not auto-updated by your code? Thanks - w o lf  17:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are those two tables also automatically updated like the other five? Thanks - w o lf  18:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By tables do you mean wikitables? The module does not modify any wikitables so I still don't understand what it is that you are asking.  If you are asking: Do all of the numbers in  reflect the number of ships found in the wikitables listed under  (5 wikitables) and the number of ships found in the wikitables listed under  (2 wikitables) then the answer is yes.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just wanted to confirm that the two wikitables under "Future ships" (on order & under construction) also have their numbers and totals updated automatically when they are edited. Also, there used to be a note for readers at the botrom of "Fleet totals" section indicating that their totals are not included in the "grand total" - it was removed during the changes, but I think it (or something like it) should remain, for clarification. Lastly, I wanted to ask your thoughts on perhaps adding a hidden note for editors advising that the "Fleet totals" are now updated automatically. Cheers - w o lf  19:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The gets updated; the two wikitables under "Future ships" (on order & under construction)  get updated.
 * I tend to think that our readers are not stupid and that the note was unnecessary because it treated them as if they were. I tend to think that when presented with a column of numbers and a grand total, they will understand that only those numbers above the grand total contributed to the grand total.  Am I wrong?  Are they not as smart as I believe them to be?  Sure, it might be better if the numbers were all right aligned somehow so that the Totals list looks more like a spreadsheet.  When I wrote the module, I simply mimicked the appearance of the manual version.  You can restore the note if you want.
 * Similarly, I don't think that editors are stupid and that they will easily understand that the content of is produced by a template – sort of like they understand that a navbox is produced by a template.  What they may not quicky suss is that unlike a navbox, there is nothing for them to edit so I should probably tweak Template:USN fleet totals/doc to explain that.  But, even so, if you want to add a hidden note, go ahead.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Grand total and its contributors prettier now? More understandable?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, wow... I think we are, somehow, on different pages, but everything is fine, the wiki-counter is fine, your edits are fine, it's all fine, so, sorry for any stress, and thanks again. - w o lf  00:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that our readers are not stupid and that the note was unnecessary because it treated them as if they were. I tend to think that when presented with a column of numbers and a grand total, they will understand that only those numbers above the grand total contributed to the grand total.  Am I wrong?  Are they not as smart as I believe them to be?  Sure, it might be better if the numbers were all right aligned somehow so that the Totals list looks more like a spreadsheet.  When I wrote the module, I simply mimicked the appearance of the manual version.  You can restore the note if you want.
 * Similarly, I don't think that editors are stupid and that they will easily understand that the content of is produced by a template – sort of like they understand that a navbox is produced by a template.  What they may not quicky suss is that unlike a navbox, there is nothing for them to edit so I should probably tweak Template:USN fleet totals/doc to explain that.  But, even so, if you want to add a hidden note, go ahead.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Grand total and its contributors prettier now? More understandable?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, wow... I think we are, somehow, on different pages, but everything is fine, the wiki-counter is fine, your edits are fine, it's all fine, so, sorry for any stress, and thanks again. - w o lf  00:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, wow... I think we are, somehow, on different pages, but everything is fine, the wiki-counter is fine, your edits are fine, it's all fine, so, sorry for any stress, and thanks again. - w o lf  00:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)