Talk:Los Angeles-class submarine

Los Angeles-class submarine
Re: Los Angeles-class submarine and your reversion of my edit which created a section for "Ship in class", but forgot to remove the "See also" section which had the same list.

Per WikiProject Ships/Guidelines and other ship class articles, there is a specific section for the list of ships instead of using the vanilla "See also" section.

See Benjamin Franklin-class submarine and James Madison-class submarine and Balao-class submarine as examples.

It appears that the section maybe should be "Boats in class" instead of "Ships in class". I will reach out to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines for clarification. Thanks. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved your post here, where it belongs, instead of my talk page. As for that edit, it was a year ago, but it appears I reverted it because you had added a duplicate link, as I basically noted in my edit summary. As for your examples above, all of those sub class pages have the ship list included in an in-article table, whereas the Los-Angeles class boats are all listed on their own separate page. I saw your post at wp:ships/guidelines and may also respond there at some point, but basically there is no hard, fast rule on article consistency, (though usually I'm in favor of it). If you want to go through all the various ship-class pages that have in-article lists of the class' ships (most do) and make all the sub-headings for the lists the same, go for it. As for this page, if you really want to have the list article linked under it's own "Ship list" sub-heading, go for it, but you would have to remove the duplicate link from the "See also" section. -  w o lf  23:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

en dash
I meant to change it to Los Angeles–class submarine (with an en dash), but I messed up and left out the italics. Feel free to update (fixing the redirects) or revert. Electricmaster (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the move, as a hyphen is correct. BilCat (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:NC-SHIPS, where the examples are clearly hyphens. BilCat (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , please slow down and take steps to avoid these repeated disruptions. Before making significant content changes, you could start a thread on the talk page seeking feedback, and for page moves, you could post an RM and seek consensus. (imho) Also, thanks for fixing this . - w o lf  07:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I was going to start a list of boats in the class (standard in many other articles), but I came across List of Los Angeles-class submarines. Should this not simply be merged into this article? Copying and pasting is an option, but why maintain it in two places?

Precedent (i.e. articles where the list of ships/boats is in the main article and not a sub-article): Mark83 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
 * Ohio-class submarine
 * Virginia-class submarine
 * Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
 * Type 23 frigate
 * FREMM multipurpose frigate
 * Comment; neither this page or the list's page are so large that merging them would create a page too large in size. And yes, those other articles have in-article list tables of the ships, (I merged the Ohio-class list back in 2018), so no reason this page should be any different. With that said, I see no problem with this merge, given that the list page is simply copied to this page, along with the notes and boxes, etc, and kept as is. There was a good deal of clean-up, re-organizing and maintenence that went into that list and the current result should be kept if moved. Anyway, jmho - w o lf  04:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I decided on WP:BEBOLD for this. Common sense and easily reversible if there is a consensus against. Mark83 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ship list
- I noticed you two putting a lot of work into this page (good on you btw), I just wanted to mention an item from the ship list: when it was separate, something I had on my 'to do list' for awhile now was to check to see if any of the decomm'd boats that are listed as "Stricken, to be disposed of by submarine recycling", have actually been done so, and should be updated to just "Disposed of by submarine recycling". (Though I'm not entirely sure we need the two distinctions, with separate shades of red no less.) Anyway, perhaps one of you has already done this, or plan to, or have thoughts on dealing with that status another way, and if so, please let me know. Cheers - w o lf  23:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm personally not that tuned for information lookup on this topic; all I've really contributed to the article is some formatting and style fixes. But I did just have a look at the NVR pages for all the boats listed as "Stricken" to see what can be updated, and all but one's status are now "Stricken, Final Disposition Pending". The exception is SSN-696, whose status interestingly still is "Stricken, to be disposed of by submarine recycling".
 * Since some boats on this Wiki page use the newer "Stricken, Final Disposition Pending" status, I'm inclined to change all the stricken boats' statuses to that as well for consistency (still not sure about SSN-696, though. NVR links both the "Stricken, to be disposed of by submarine recycling" and "Stricken, Final Disposition Pending" statuses to this same definition, so the difference must not be that great. But for the sake of matching what NVR says, I would keep SSN-696's status as it is).
 * As for distinguishing between stricken and disposed ships, I don't really have a preference. I might be inclined to just keep the distinction as it is because I don't know any better alternative. Let's see what Mark has to say on this. Findingmoney100 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. As I said, I'm not so sure that we really need to make the distinction. Instead of having everything split between red and orange, we could just list everything under a single color, with something like:
 * "Ship decommissioned, not part of the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program"
 * ... or something to that effect. (jmho) - w o lf  07:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have strong feelings on this. A few thoughts though:
 * I think the descriptions are too long. For example the summary table could remain “ Disposed of by submarine recycling” and the rows could just be “Disposed of”.
 * “Stricken, undergoing nuclear deactivation” - too much detail? Surely this is all part of submarine recycling?
 * “Disposed of by submarine recycling (scrapping)” why a separate category? Scrapping is redundant?
 * “final disposition pending” - this is unnecessarily pompous language. Surely just “TBC” would be more readily understood? Mark83 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed "(scrapping)" as it was in fact redundant. I updated the boats' statuses so the "Stricken, undergoing nuclear deactivation" status no longer exists. I agree with your first and fourth bullet points. We could use "TBC" as you suggest (or "TBD") using the abbr template, or just spell it out as it seems short enough. Findingmoney100 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)