Talk:List of tank landing ships

comments
I question the importance and usefulness of a 38kb list of ships. The US ones at least have pretty obvious names anyway. I think about 14 of the first section of 1070 links are blue at present. If anyone is interested in these vessels, I find it unlikely that they will search for this list specifically, as they will probably know the number of the vessel they are looking for. As such I am posting this on AfD, whilst myself abstaining (I am not an expert on list policies etc. and I'd rather let more experienced persons than myself decide.) Dan 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose Mike McGregor (Can) 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC), i vote keep it. esp since most of these ships have detailed articles..

I was going to ask why the list is so short, but I see from the deletion page that somebody just cut all the red links. That seems unwise--eventually they'll have articles. —wwoods 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to List of tank landing ships. Jenks24 (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

List of LSTs → List of Landing Ships, Tank – Ideally this should spell out the full name instead of using the abbreviation/hull code. However, due to the odd nature of the pluralisation of this ship type, I figured it might be a good idea to use the RM process instead of doing it WP:BOLDly, in case it's felt it would cause confusion. The Bushranger One ping only 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hesitate to make this remark, but is there something wrong with using List of tank landing ships (which seems potentially better as a description of the topic in English)? –BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment LCT is at landing craft tank, so why are we using a comma here? landing ship tank without the comma and without capitalization would seem more appropriate. Why is it being capitalized? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A "landing ship tank" seems, grammatically, to describe a type of tank made for use on landing ships. (So does "landing craft tank", I suppose.) I notice that Landing craft tank actually does use the comma in its opening sentence: "The Landing Craft, Tank (or Tank Landing Craft) was ..." –BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment seems pretty clear that LST is used on its own, "boarded a Landing Ship, Tank" isn't. Congressional Record, V. 144, Pt. 10, June 25, 1998 to July 14, 1998 "The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to the Government of Argentina on a grant basis the tank landing ship Newport (LST 1179) " etc. Not all abbreviations can be turned back into the original component parts. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That quote seems to reinforce my suggestion of using List of tank landing ships. This one reminds me a bit of the International Organization for Standardization and its standardized abbreviation ISO. At least they avoided the comma. How about List of landing ships for tanks? –BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move somewhere else. I'd prefer List of tank landing ships. It's more readable, a more natural search term, and it's closer to what sources use. bobrayner (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed name 'List of Landing Ships, Tank' (but I support 'List of tank landing ships'). The proposed name's capitalization was wrong, and anyway we don't torture a French initialism's English translation (the ISO example was exactly the one that occurred to me). -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 15:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Side comment drifting away from the main topic: ISO in French seems to be called the "Organisation internationale de normalisation", which would seem to most naturally be "OIN", although the official French abbreviation is ISO. (And the official Russian abbreviation is "ИСО".) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support alternate, List of tank landing ships: important to expand abbreviation, and this seems the best way. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tank landing ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229160832/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-navy-sends-3/1555850.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-navy-sends-3/1555850.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Addition of the Spanish navy
Although Juan Carlos is referred as an aircraft carrier, she is a Multi-role vessel for the Spanish navy capable of performing many versatile kinds of operations one of which being the one we are discussing. So I have not yet edited the article but I strongly believe that Juan Carlos deserves its rightful place here.

P. S same for the Australian navy.

P. P. S please ignore any spelling errors! CAPTAIN NOBODY (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)