Template talk:Infobox ship begin/Archive 3

Callsign
Can a callsign field be added? It would probably be useful in a lot of ship articles. 83.226.220.102 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Callsign and similar information should go in the "Ship identification=" field. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ship Classification Society
The name of classification society that classes the ship is very important. It is not currently in the infobox template. Ideally a history of class society would be helpful, but the current one would be adequate. Ships that change or get bounced from class society to class society typically have a number of safety or operational issues. Some of the smaller class societies have a history of looking past safety issues. In an accident, the class society is one of the first organizations to be called. Therefore I think it would be helpful to have this information, even though it may not mean much to some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj245 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This falls under the same umbrella as requests we get for callsign, imo #, official number, and so forth. My feeling is that this info is fundamentally important for merchant ships (navy guys: consider trying to identify the 3 USS Reuben James without side-numbers) and might be best contained in a separate module.  Ok, now that I got that off my chest, disagree vehemently with me, Tom. :)   H aus  Talk   22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd be much happier adding a classification society field than many of the others. This is a single, distinct piece of information that doesn't really fit anywhere else, and I agree that it's important.  The reason I fight about stuff like callsign, imo#, official number, and so forth is because they're extremely similar pieces of information, and I frankly think that if you listed them all in separate fields you'll end up with a gigantor infobox, half of whose length is full of information that is useful to very few people.  I think all those little numbers are best stuffed into one field.
 * If there are no objections to adding classification society, I'd be happy to do it; I'll let it sit for a couple of days to see if anyone else needs to weigh in. TomTheHand (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick comment about these numners: IMO numbers are used in the industry the way a primary key is in a database table. If you want to go to DNV or ABS or the USCG and look up a ship, you can put in a name and sift through a bunch of results, or put in an IMO number and get either 0 or 1 result.  Callsigns are nice to know, but if you have an IMO number, you only need to do 2 searches at most to find a call sign.  Nobody knows MMSI numbers -- they're written down, and you can look them up off of IMO number.  Official numbers aren't widely used -- port state control and Navy/Coast Guard ships ask for them from time to time, but again nobody knows them off the top of their head.  Cheers.   H aus  Talk   23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the other day that a classification society field would be quite useful. It could be placed above or below the identification field, perhaps? And the identification field is perfectly sufficient for all the identifiers a ship might have, and as a field it's nicely versatile so that people can put in the IMO number and other numbers if they prefer. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Custom fields
That's very clever. I like it. Demonstrates the value of the "Hide header" field, too. Additional fields can also be added after and before the "|}". One little thing, "Ship nickname" is no longer documented in "Characteristics" though it's still in the template.


 * Where does one find out about things like ?  Cheesh!  Talk about esoteric.  I know it's documented, but where did you find it?  I need to run a cable drop to the bedroom so I can read myself to sleep scoping out templates.   --Saintrain 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing the "Ship nickname" thing. As far as  goes, when I was developing this infobox, I came up with some examples and put them at User:TomTheHand/test.  Everything sort of ran together instead of getting divided how I expected by the section headers, and  came by and inserted some  's to clean it up.  That's how I learned about it. TomTheHand 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I LIKE WP! --Saintrain 01:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning that. I used it on Carnival Destiny. Goodvac (talk)  18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Standard formatting in the infoboxes has been to include the "Call Sign" in the "ship identification =" field, so I undid the custom field and moved the information to the standard one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Former names request
editprotected
 * Request: Please add "former names" to the ship career header on the code for individual ships. Goodvac (talk)  18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For prior ship names, there are two methods. For commercial ships, I usually use a format similar to what's on the MS Prinsendam article.  For military ships, I usually see a format that repeats the career block for each name the ship has held. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sort of agreeing with Barek, who admittedly did not say he opposed the addition of the said field, former names can be elegantly dealt with within the current infobox fields structure, a la MS Prinsendam or by repeating the entire box. Also, if we have a "fomer name(s)" field, then by logical we'd also need "former owners", "former operators", "former ports of registry", "former nicknames", "former routes" and even "former identification" (as things such as callsigns will change when the ship's flag changes). And that list only covers the needs of commercial vessels, no idea what else would be needed for warships. My two cents would be to keep things simple and utilize the existing fields rather than adding more new ones.-- Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in that we do not need to add another field to the box when it can already be done as it is now but in a different method. --Brad (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ship christened" v. "Ship named"
On the MS Queen Victoria article, I reverted an edit by an anon who changed the infobox from "|Ship christened =" to instead be "|Ship named =". I reverted it simply because Infobox Ship Begin does not currently contain a "Ship named" field available for accepting entries. But, the anon does have a point. The ship was actually christened when her hull first touched water, during the launching ceremony. But what gets the press coverage for many ships is the naming ceremony which usually happens after the owners have taken posession of the ship (such as the case for the MS Queen Victoria).

So, the question is how to deal with this. Should a new "Ship named" field be added to the template? I'm usually against adding fields whenever possible, as I prefer to merge data into existing multi-purpose fields to keep down the template bloat ... but in this case, I don't see an accurate field to merge the data into. What's the opinion of others on this for the best way to address it in articles? Is a new field needed? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an interim solution could use |Ship name= Named Foo on Date. So far we have |named= or |renamed= in that arena. --Brad (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
Would anyone object to the addition of a "coordinates" property, to take coord as its input, for use when the ship is sunk or permanently berthed? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

OK: On Infobox Ship Career (whose talk page redirects here), please change:

to:

I will then update the documentation accordingly.

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see any consensus to make this change. --Brad (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Silence=consent is, AIUI, a WP policy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed functionality would duplicate coord, which seems to have wide consensus. I don't think it's necessary to add this to this infobox. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed functionality would duplicate coord: No, it would not, It would allow an instance of coord to be entered into the infobox; as is done in a great many other infoboxes, for example Infobox Park. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I still don't think it's necessary to add this to this infobox. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's commonly done in other infoboxes which mention locatable objects, and ship articles such as RMS Titanic, HMS Victory and Cutty Sark already have coordinates. Perhaps, on reflection there should also be a "location" field, for a text entry ("Portsmouth, England" or "London England")? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You could utilize one of the three existing fields: |Ship fate=, |Ship status= or |Ship notes= to list the coordinates. The idea is not to overload this infobox with fields that are rarely used. --Brad (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to do that instead, I'll withdraw this request (I've done so temporarily, for now) and update the documentation accordingly. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did so, and was promptly reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that it's not really needed. The coordinates shown via coord is adequate, and other stuff exists really isn't a meaningful argument by itself to justify changing this template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "other stuff exists" wasn't being used in isolation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

←Does anyone else have anything to add? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "Unresolved" is a fair characterization, since it seems to me that the proposal was rejected. Nevertheless, I still see no need for the addition of a separate coordinates field within the infobox. If you look at the article GERMAN SUBMARINE U-88, how would having the coordinates three times—once at the top of the page, once in the prose, and once in the infobox—improve the article? In a longer article (like USS Huron (ID-1408) for example), where the whole article is not on a single screen of information, you would still have the coordinates listed twice at the top of the article.
 * If there's a specific article where the page-top display generated by is not appropriate for some reason, the coordinates can be inserted into the   or , like "Sunk at 15.26667°N, 13.23333°W by alien invaders". — Bellhalla (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unresolved in that the compromise solution was to "utilize one of the three existing fields: |Ship fate=, |Ship status= or |Ship notes= to list the coordinates", but when I added text to that effect to the template's documentation, it was summarily reverted. The page-top (usually called "title") display is required, to ensure that the article is listed in partner projects such as Google Maps and Google earth - there is widespread consensus to use this display format across Wikipedia; and it happens on a good many thousands of articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra field (for sail ships): Figurehead
It was trend for many 'age of sail' vessels to have a figurehead fitted to perched on the very foremost tip of the hull. Since you have a ship's badge in the template, I thought it would only be appropriate to have it's precursor, the figurehead as well.

tony.rc (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you plan on including a photo of the figurehead or simply describing it like |Ship figurehead=Mickey Mouse? If you were only going to describe the figurehead then you might use |Ship notes=Launched with a figurehead of Mickey Mouse and replaced with Goofy in 1976. --Brad (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new field for Template:Infobox Ship Class Overview
What do others think of a adding a new field to Template:Infobox Ship Class Overview to reflect the number of ships scrapped? If so, which wording would be preferred: "Scrapped:" or "Broken up:"? Both terms seem to be equally used in reference materials and I have no personal preference either way. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definately a good idea for a field, IMO it should be added. As for the precise term, in my experience "scrapped" is slightly more commonly used as a term than "broken up". On the other hand "broken up" might be easier to understand for the casual reader. The Wiki article on the process is named "ship breaking", so following this "broken up" should perhaps be the term to use. Personally That said, I'd personally prefer "scrapped". — Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think either is understandable, but am unsure they are exactly the same thing. For example, "broken up" might include ships that are scuttled?  In a discussion some time back, User:TomTheHand said "We intentionally left off 'Ships scrapped' because essentially, 'Ships out of service' - 'Ships preserved' = the number of ships which left service but were not preserved, and were therefore scrapped."  Something to think about...   H aus Talk 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Broken up would certainly work much better where age of sail ships are concerned... though there's no reason both can't be there. Just put the more appropriate one into the infobox 'flavours' we have. Martocticvs (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Martocticvs: I'm not too keen on having several fields that fullfill the same function. There are enough people using the full infobox code on civilian vessels and attempting to fill every field. More fields means more confusion and as such we should IMO have just one field.


 * Haus: Although Tom has a point, you have to remember that are cases when a (civilian) ship has been laid up for a very long time (a decade or more). In such a case it would be neither preserved nor in service, and hence would offset the "left service-preserved=scrapped" equation. Naturally these cases are rare, but not unheard of and therefore should be taken into account. Strike that, we obviously have a "ships laid up" field. Never the less, I think a "scrapped" field would be useful. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If there were an "out of service" field, I could understand the point Tom had made, but I don't see one. I see a "ships retired" which doesn't have quite the same meaning as "out of service". And, from a quick glance at the history, there appears not to have ever been one(?) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, I support adding a "scrapped" parameter. In a perfect world, we'd have a set of ship fates F1, F2... Fn, so that the total of all ships in the class would be F1+ F2 + ... +Fn.  But in the meantime, there's no reason to "let the perfect be the enemy of the good."  Cheers.   H aus Talk 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a "scrapped" entry would improve the template. "scrapped" is likely the most common term to use. --Brad (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I added it to the template and to the documentation. If invoked, it will appear between "retired" and "preserved". I'm also going to request protection for the template. It's the only one of the Infobox templates not protected. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to field meanings?
Hi, layman here! I was just browsing as anyone would (not as a Wiki-versed editor, I mean) and thought it a bit strange that the field headings of the infobox are not linked to other Wikipedia articles to explain their meaning. The example in this case would be: draft. I had to do a separate search for this term to find out what it meant, rather than going straight through on a blue link. I thought, well, I could have a go at linking it on the template, but it appears that the infoboxes are copy/pasted rather than transcluded so therefore realise it would be a mammoth task to undertake. Is it necessary or do we assume everyone who looks at an article on ships already has the knowledge of technical terms? – B.hotep u/t• 13:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ammendment: It is transcluded, sorry. So can the headings be linked on the template? – B.hotep u/t• 13:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't point you to a particular discussion, but I believe that linking terms within the infobox was decided against at some point. Perhaps it's time to revisit this? (In articles that I write, I always try to link to appropriate terms (like draft (hull)) when writing in the body of the article.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A very cursory look found examples such as Infobox Country and Infobox road which link item captions. The idea also seems to be consistent with WP:BUILD.  The only problem that occurs to me is where there's not a one-to-one correlation between usage and definitions.  Two examples of exceptions are Identification which was purposely left vague (c.f. RMS Titanic) and Tonnage which is widely misused to show displacement.  Overall, however, I do support the idea.   H aus Talk 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree; we should link to the most commonly used terms like draft and beam but use caution not to turn the template into a sea of blue links. --Brad (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

List of potential field links
This is a list of possible links that could be unambiguously linked within infoboxes. Please add or remove other items as necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Draft/draught → draft (hull)
 * Beam → beam (nautical)
 * Launch → Ship naming and launching
 * Is "Christening" essentially the same thing? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At least for civilian ships it is not. Often (but certainly not always) the christening ceremony is held only after the ship has been completeted and delivered to her owners. It might be benificial in the general scheme of things if the Ship naming and launching -article would be split into two articles. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Commission → ship commissioning
 * Decommission → ship decommissioning
 * Displacement → displacement (ship)
 * I think these fields are a good place to start. --Brad (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second thought.. is there a possibility of incorporating a |link=off into the template so those who don't want these headings linked can turn them off? --Brad (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Show/hide
When a ship has gone through a number of flags, infoboxes can get a bit long - example Empire Adur. Would it be possible to have an optional show/hide thingy to add to the separate career infoboxes that make up each section of the infobox. Maybe this can already be done but I don't know how to.

With this change, the infobox would just show the country and flag, plus the general characteristics. Full details could be seen by clicking on the "show" button. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That article is for a commercial ship, which shouldn't be using the flag and country fields. The WikiProject Ships practice for present-day commercial ships is to not display a large flag at the top of the infobox, which is why the code for commercial ships at template:Infobox Ship Begin specifically omits those fields.  This practice is in line with the Manual of Style, which cautions not to emphasize nationality without good reason. The field for displaying the flag at the top of the infobox is primarilly intended for military ships, not commercial ships.  See MS Prinsendam (1988) for an example of how commercial ships that have gone through multiple owners/ports of registry can be shown in order to compact the display.  Or, the current display could just be compacted by moving the country/flag data to the port of registry field - that in itself should compact it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ps: Sorry, much of the above text is cut/paste from a standard post I've seen used on this topic. I realize the I shouldn't template the regulars - so, please forgive my laziness on that. :-)  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doing it that way creates problems. Firstly, the official number is different in two places, and unknown in the other two. Homeport is the same. Code letters are only known in one out of four instances. At least presenting the info in the way I have done, it is clear where each piece of info is relevant to. Nationality is correctly displayed as it was the flag flown by the ship at each stage of its career. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, you state that that is for present day commercial ships, which is not the case here. Empire Adur is a past ship, no longer in existance. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The country and flag can still be moved to the port of registry field. It's technically more accurate anyway as that's how the nationality applies - for commercial ships the flag field would be most accurate for the flag of the company that owned the ship at that time - putting the country there actually over-emphasizes the role of the nationality of the port of registry.
 * Optionally, years can be inserted into the fields to clarify where information changed. In this case, that could be confusing, but it is an option that has been used in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Infobox rewritten. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Barek, I want to have your babies. On a(n un)related note, I went and changed the "homeport" field in SS Empire Adur into "port of registry". This was discussed above, and the bottom line is that the term "homeport" is widely misused in the (present-day) cruise industry, and as such "port of registry" is a better choice as it has the same meaning as "homeport" when the latter is correctly used. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) There might be some use for this feature on the characteristics section, mainly for ships that have had multiple rebuilds... the real example I'm thinking of though is using the ship class box... 1745 Establishment. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but is rather ungainly! Martocticvs (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I have a comment please on whether this is better than this? Or is the old version clearer? Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the second as far as conciseness in the operator field. Some other suggestions: Since the article is named "SS Empire Adventure" it looks funny to see the name Eastney in the infobox, with the most notable name much farther down. Perhaps setting up the name field like the operator and other fields with year ranges, Like:
 * Eastney (1920–1924)
 * Germaine L D (1924–1931)
 * Andrea (1931–1940)
 * Empire Adventure (1940)
 * Also, "status" and "fate" are usually mutually exclusive, with "status" generally used for extant ships and "fate" for those no longer around. (I would also recommend that "fate" to be the ultimate fate, like "sunk by U-138, 21 September 1940" rather than a recitation of all of the ship's sales, etc.) — Bellhalla (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Belhalla. I've rewritten the infobox yet again in line with your suggestions. Thanks for your corrections too, I'm not a ship expert but your help means I'll make fewer mistakes in future. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)