Template talk:Infobox ship begin/Archive 5

Italics on title
Nice touch!, but I cant figure out why didnt work on ARA Teniente Olivieri (A-2), ARA Suboficial Castillo (A-6) and ARA Comodoro Rivadavia (Q-11)‎. thanks --Jor70 (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like the string parsing functions used by this template don't handle spaces. So probably if there's a space within the ship name itself, it won't work and the italicization will have to be done manually.--Kotniski (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried but didnt work, strangly HMS Ark Royal (R09) is shown ok --Jor70 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, all very strange, in fact Ark Royal is not shown OK any more (after I purged it). Apparently there must have been a change in one of the string handling templates recently, but I can't seem to find it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I think I've found the problem - someone's edited Template:Str index/getchar, which is transculded through several levels until it ends up here. Should have it sorted soon.--Kotniski (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job! --Jor70 (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Positioning of infobox
Hi, Right now I see the infoboxes appearing in articles as a single column. Is it possible to group them, or left-justify them?

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are primarilly intended for use in individual ship articles, not to list all the ships as you've done at Toronto Island Ferry. For the use you're describing, I think it would probably be better to use sortable tables of just the key data, not the full list of infobox fields. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful with the unfounded accusations, like "you've done".
 * I found a fucking mess there; I did not create said fucking mess.
 * Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. When I tried locating a context for your question from your contrib history, I found that article.  Sorry if my poor choice of words caused offense, it was not intended as such.
 * Regardless, I still think a sortable table would be a better method for listing and comparing multiple ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And you should be careful with your wording, per WP:CIVIL, please. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Change to comply with WP:WORDPRECEDENT
This template needs to be change in order to comply with WP:WORDPRECEDENT. The name of the country who owns the ship needs to moved to the right and given greater precedent Gnevin (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling at the moment to understand what if anything the recent change to the guideline mandates for or against. The discussion on the talk page is not much help either. This sentence - 'Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedent over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or list to the detriment of words.' means what exactly? Why should the name be moved to the right? How is this giving greater precedent [sic]? I can't see any reason so far to change the current layout. Benea (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The expected format of infoboxes is title of the left, information of the right. This template doesn't follow this convent in other to display some flags. This needs to be changed so the words are where you would expect to find them Gnevin (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An example would be useful, if I'm to have a fighting chance of understanding your point. Shem (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Example Gnevin (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is the change proposed, then I oppose it. The country field is already very clearly marked in the career field, which is already just to the left of the field reserved for the flag. All the change does is to make them share the same field, and makes both appear squashed, and the flag smaller. Contrary to the original proposal, there is no need to change at all. The guideline (to which this new 'word precedent' section was added without much in the way of comment) is vague, and does not mandate any changes. The wording of what is 'expected' in an infobox is especially unclear and open to interpretation. Moving the name of the country into the same field does not change the order of precedence in the slightest. Benea (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The formatting can be played with if you prefer a separate field for the flag fine. The expected layout of side infoboxes is especially clear. Find me one other infobox where the information is on the left and if you do I'll find you 99 others following the expected layout? These are the infoboxes I would consider this infoxbox's peers Template:Infobox automobile, Template:Infobox aircraft begin ,Template:Infobox aircraft begin and Template:Infobox Weapon . All have the headings in the left column the details in the right Gnevin (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As an editor who has written a few ship articles, I feel obliged to express my opinion on this new proposal. The proposed changes look extremely odd, why replace a system that actually works with one that is much less reader-friendly? Oppose. Manxruler (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because WP:WORDPRECEDENT says so? WP:SHIPS was informed of this change. If the only issue people have is how is looks, that can be changed. However can we argee in princpal that the name of the country should be moved into the righthand column Gnevin (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WORDPRECEDENT, despite being your proposal, says no such thing whatsoever. The point I made before stands. The addendum you made to that guideline (and I stress it is only a guideline) is extremely vague and unclear, has nothing to do with what side of an infobox information should appear, had only one comment made before you added it, and finally no, I cannot agree that the basic principle is that the name should be moved to the right. The guideline has no say over whether information should be in the right or left side of the box, there is no consensus that the name of the country counts as 'information' (however that may be defined) as opposed to a sectional heading, nor can I see that there is a defined standard that there is such a thing as an 'expected' infobox (who is expecting this?). And finally, even if there was, it is for a consensus to be formed here by the users of the relevant wikiproject. Benea (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This has been established in long discussion at mosicon.  The flag cannot be recognized by all viewers and so this template must change.Curb Chain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The most recent change has actually gone back to separating the country name and the flag, this time by creating a new field within the infobox. This is actually even more against the whole point you were trying to impress upon us, that the flag must be accompanied by the name. Previously the name and the flag were both in the same heading, and you were arguing that your interpretation of your latest addition to MOSICON meant that the name should be shifted to the right, i.e. the two jammed up together. Now you are saying that you are abandoning that interpretation, the name doesn't have to be even vaguely connected with the flag, and that it is the 'side' of the infobox that matters? Can you be consistent on what you are proposing, and use guidelines that actually support it? Benea (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort. I said it should be in the right column. I've always maintained that Gnevin (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style_(icons) is what I am quoting. This part has been on the guideline LONG before our rfcs.  It says "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags.".  The template does not do that.Curb Chain (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:WORDPRECEDENT uses the word "should", this is not the same as "must" and allows for the occasional exception. The objection to the flag replacing words is easily overcome. Instead of , we can write   Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote it's a discussion but that is a reasonable suggestion Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see the guidelines claiming that textual information should be near the icon. The infobox as it is already does this. I do not see any reason why it must be on the right, left, center, above or below the icon. Brad (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote it's a discussion. It's doesn't say the expected format shouldn't be change to suit icons to the detriment of the text Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who came in and said This template needs to be change in order to comply with WP:WORDPRECEDENT. I disagree and oppose any change for no good apparent reason. You have not supplied a good reason. Brad (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WORDPRECEDENT is a good reason you've just chosen to ignore it. However about the fact this template is the only one that uses this format? Or the fact that the name of the country is in a obscured location? Gnevin (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Gnevin's arguments, all of them. Also, the way the flag is on TOP or the way it is sized significantly bigger than normal, and the way it is centered in a header, creates undue weight.Curb Chain (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the guideline tail wagging the article dog again. Oppose (and I know it's not a vote).  It seems to me that the current infobox (for example at HMS Norfolk (F230)) perfectly fits the bill, and shows clearly where a ship has changed nation.  Changing it to match one or two strident opinions of what a particular guideline demands does not, in my opinion, serve the encyclopedia very well. Shem (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is an article issue. Not all articles using this template has the country's name, just the flag, which not everyone knows.Curb Chain (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The change proposed is pretty minor, the flag stays and can changed back to the original size it needed, the only change is to move where the country name is displayed. I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. It would seem like common sense to move it from my point of view and I've yet to see a reason why the country name isn't where it is expected. Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Expected by you, you mean. I expect it where it is.  You still haven't explained why the positioning of the name either matters or is improved in the position you suggest. At the moment the country name is in bold and appears first.  You are suggesting it moves down and is not bold (so far as I can tell).  How does this give the text greater precedence?  Am I misunderstanding you? So that we can all see the difference, I've put the standard infobox in here. Shem (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * infobox is used in 800,000 + articles. This is the expected format Gnevin (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks in template
When using this template in ship articles, parameter names such as Draft and Beam are viewed as naked text, not piped links such as Draft and Beam. As Wikipedia is supposed to be readily readable for anyone with little prior knowledge, such piped links would provide a much better access to further information, throughout ship articles and with little editing nescessary. TGCP (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This was discussed a couple of years ago but nothing ever became of it. Brad (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I searched for it, but did not find this. It seems a consensus was almost reached, so if a few more opinions could be put forward, we can come to a decision. I suggest we write a proposal with a limited number of un-ambiguous links, and discuss that and no more. If approved, we may discuss further sometime. TGCP (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not as convinced as I was two years ago about this. Far too many articles on WP are overlinked and it looks tacky. I've sometimes written a measurement like "20ft beam (width)" which almost eliminates the need to explain what a beam measurement is. Brad (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think such links are necessary in the infobox. You can always write a separate chapter which describes the general characteristics and main dimensions of the ship, and put the links there. Tupsumato (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Designer parameter
Could we have a Designer parameter, please? Quite a lot of the records that we are getting via GLAM/NMM contain information on who designed a ship, and I can't see an easy way to get this into the infoboxes at present, though it does strike me as useful infobox material. The Land (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not against it, but is it really possible to narrow it down to a single person or company? Also, what stage of design are we talking about? Tupsumato (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Often, yes. For older ships (Age of Sail) it is sometimes literally the case that one person was "the designer". From the 19th C onwards it is more likely that the person credited as the "designer" is the chief naval architect of the relevant navy or firm, supported by a bevy of junior naval architects and draughtsmen - but the term "designer" is still used in sources. The further into the 20th C you get the more complicated the term becomes, and that's where the issue about stages of design becomes more relevant. So it's not a field that will be completed for every ship but it would certainly be a useful one to have. The Land (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is very much needed for the famous designers of the clipper ships, such as Donald McKay, William H. Webb, and John W. Griffiths. I've tried adding this info myself, but the template doesn't accept a designer tag on individual infoboxes. Could someone please modify the template? Trilliumz (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Add maps to infobox
Can we please have a facility to add a map to the infobox. This should be a separate section underneath the characteristics. I've recently been addin maps to some ship articles, where they were appearing underneath the infobox, but for some reason at RMS Magdalena (1948) the map is currently displaying to the left of the infobox and above the lede, it is also impinging on the infobox. Incorporation of the map into the template should correct this issue. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the exact geographic location of a the ship wreck that important? A massive map would seem to give WP:UNDUE . Gnevin (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a map helps the reader to understand exactly where a ship met its fate. In the example given, the map has been tuned to be the same size as the infobox. I think that looks better than a smaller map. The display issue seems to have sorted itself now. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not a map of where the ship was laid down, commissioned, it normal operating routes? Why is where it sank if at all so important ? If a ship is decomisioned instead of sunk will there be a map for that? Gnevin (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not an archaelogy / milhist journal. It's not obvious that a map of the resting place is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps coordinates instead
I just came here to suggest adding "Ship coord" parameter after "Ship fate", when I noted the above discussion. Besides shipwrecks, Coords would be useful for Museum ships, mothballed ships, or hulks. This would not be as big a visual impact as adding a map directly but allow accessing the map through the geohack link if the reader is interested. I've already seen some articles that have the coordinates added manually (e.g. USS Iowa (BB-61), RMS Titanic) and I just added one for USS Williamsburg (AGC-369), which, while still afloat, doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

I would recommend that the value for "Ship coord" be entered with the Coord template with display=inline,title, rather than recreating the wheel like many older templates do. For example: |Ship coord=10.34167°N, -40.835°W --J Clear (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In the majority of cases, aren't coordinates already being displayed at the top of the article, just above the infobox? -- saberwyn 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship infobox manual
I was just thinking if, instead of having just "some tips" in the Parameters chapter, we could have a complete manual on filling the ship infobox. While most fields are, as described in the template page, self-explanatory, I think we should still explain each of them to some degree and perhaps give some guidelines on how to fill them correctly. For example I've seen "+1A1" in the ice class field several times even though it has nothing to do with ice class, not to mention "gross tons" in the tonnage field...

Anyway, the manual wouldn't have to be THAT detailed — just some basic information about what the field means (perhaps with links to relevant Wikipedia articles), useful templates (convert etc.), how much information one should present ("Propulsion: diesel" just simply isn't enough!) and so on.

What do you think? Tupsumato (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've long thought that to be a good idea but it always comes down to having the time and energy to do it. Brad (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is always an issue, but if enough people participate, I guess we can all spare a moment every now and then. Perhaps someone could come up with an open draft based on common sense, existing Q&A and instructions regarding specific fields, and several existing good-quality infoboxes (e.g. FA/A-class articles) and start improving that? I can start participating in the project once I've finished my current unfinished online articles (namely this), but it could perhaps be better if a more experienced WP:Ships editor took the lead — after spending my youth with books like the Finnish Illustrated List of Ships I'm pretty biased to more technical approach regarding infoboxes, which might not be a good thing in a general encyclopedia. Tupsumato (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking the same thing a few minutes ago, and have some time up my sleeve in the next few days. I'll link my initial efforts here once I start. -- saberwyn 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll try to find some time to comment/expand it once the first draft is ready. Tupsumato (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

First, very crude draft is up at User:Saberwyn/Template:Infobox Ship For Dummies. At the moment, its only a list of the fields with some dotpoints indicating what I think goes into them. There are some fields I don't know the usage for, these (plus other comments and observations) are indicated in brackets and italics. -- saberwyn 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work! I'd say a bullet point list is a good way to work on the draft version — if necessary, it can be turned into prose quite easily. I'll try to find time to read that through with thought during this weekend and leave comments on the talk page.
 * However, in addition to just describing each field I think we should list relevant templates (e.g. GT and DWT for the tonnage field) and also give specific advices and concrete examples e.g. what is a good way to list the ship's main engines ("diesel" just isn't enough). Also some general information e.g. regarding the use of unit conversion templates and such could be added. Some of this we can not decide by ourselves, so it would be a good idea to post a "request for comments" on the project main talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could User:Saberwyn/Template:Infobox_Ship_For_Dummies link already be added to the this template's docs and to the WP:SHIPS information and sources as is? I believe this is where newbies first come to look for additional information and without having definitions handy, it's quite hard to guess what all the terms refer to. And Infobox Ship For Dummies is a great starting point for begginers. --Zevnik (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It could be "published", but it should still be labeled as an early draft. There are still items that need to be discussed. Tupsumato (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the material is almost ready to go. The only main sticking point is the "power and propulsion" issue: I still can't make heads or tails of what belongs where. Any other changes can be made through normal editing once it goes live. -- saberwyn 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to have most of the terminology like tonnage, displacement, draft, beam, etc. linked. I know that's been proposed before and shot down, but I still think it's worth doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just saw this, and noticed an error under "ship flag" (I came here at that point, haven't reviewed the rest yet) ...
 * Where it states "while civilian ships will use the civilian/merchant ensign of their nation of registry.", this wasn't the original intent for civilian ships, and for quite a while such use was actively purged when found. The logic being that for military ships, the national flag is the nation that owns the ship, while for civilian vessels (especially for cruise and similar commercial ships), the flag frequently has no relationship to the home country of the company that owns or operates the ship, or even of the crew and may not even be representative of the national language spoken by the crew - this is because the flag of registry has more to do with tax reporting than with any meaningful relationship to the ship, company, or crew.  As a result, for commercial ships, this was originally left blank - although over time company flags were inserted (for example, see RMS Titanic, where the former company flag of White Star Line is shown). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another item I spotted, I think it would be beneficial to clarify in the section "Ship launched" that it's not the same as the "Ship maiden voyage" ... one of the common mistakes I've seen is where people sometimes list the maiden voyage date as the launch date. It's not a huge deal, but I think mentioning it here could help towards reducing user confusion.
 * I also saw the question on "Ship power" and "Ship propulsion" ... my understanding is that the "Ship power" represents the power source utilized (ie: number and size of boilers, turbines, etc and the horse-power or kilowatts they generate); while the "Ship propulsion" field describes the propeller or thruster that actually makes contact with the water (ie: number of blades and material, or the number/size/type of thrusters used). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please leave your comments on the manual's talk page as well (if you already haven't). We should solve the issue before the Infobox for Dummies manual goes live. I will also look into it later and clarify my previous opinions regarding the use of the power and propulsion fields. As for launch date vs. maiden voyage, such information should of course be included in the basic manual, although instead of "don't mix these two" one should rather describe what each field is for. Tupsumato (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Canadian ship names not displayed in italics
Looking at for instance Category:Bangor class minesweepers of the Royal Canadian Navy, it seems that the names aren't italicized correctly in the article titles, even though "HMCS" is included in the code of Ship prefix. Could it be because there is a shorter prefix, "HMC", listed in that template? Favonian (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the problem is with the template, I have asked the question at Template talk:Ship prefix. Favonian (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

References/inline citations
In the articles I have written, I have always used inline citations (i.e. &lt;ref&gt; tags) in the infobox so that in the "Career" section(s) nearly every field has its own inline citation(s) and in "General characteristics" I have placed "general references", e.g. classification society database entries and shipping company websites, to the "caption" field and individual references in their respective fields. See, for example, this article. However, I noted that User:Emerson7 moved all reference tags to the "notes" field in the articles about Tempera and Mastera. Does WP:Ships have any guidelines regarding the placement of inline citations in infoboxes? Personally I (obviously) prefer the way I've done it in the past as it clearly shows where each bit of information came from. Tupsumato (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend bringing this up at WT:SHIPS. For background on this issue, please see first report and second report.  Cheers.  Haus Talk 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I failed to check the main talk page archives. Sorry about that — I'll read them through before bringing this up again. Tupsumato (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by Haus, I opened a topic regarding the use of inline citations in infoboxes on the main talk page. Please continue the discussion there. Tupsumato (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking terms?
This recent means that all occurrences of "compliment" in the box are wikilinked to ship's company. Is this something we want to follow? I'm just imagining an infobox full of blue links. Brad (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm against such wikilinking in the infobox. If necessary, the links can be placed in the article body. Tupsumato (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've the change. Brad (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hull classification?
Is it possible to get the hull classification or hull number added to this or another appropriate infobox? 70.247.162.84 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about the Ship identification field? Tupsumato (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are asking. Are you saying I should use that field?  Are you suggesting that field be added?  I'm definitely not an expert on templates.  70.247.162.84 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of a hull number used in the infobox of a US Navy ship: USS Lexington (CV-2).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting
I reverted to the format, which introduced a caption above the infobox. At the moment it is divorced from the infobox, drifting above it, and merely reproduced the article title directly above it, with no options for formatting, or other details. There is a field underneath for the ship name, and given ships can change names, the infobox fields allow this to be listed and described. As with all things I'm open for a debate on this however. Benea (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not about "format"; formatting is about ephemeral things like italics. Captions (html table captions) are a core structural element of tables (and thus infoboxes). The ship boxes are about the only infoboxes on the project that don't do captions, although many get things structurally wrong by using an in-table header (or, worse, td-cell). The Ship name in Infobox ship career is at the wrong level in this system, although it may best be retained for renamed ships.


 * Table captions belong "above" the table; that's html-standard (there are options for other sides, but I doubt anyone will much care for those). This should be implemented with options/mechanisms for proper italics and metadata. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly open to discussion about having a caption, but also how it appears. The simple aping of the article title, and how it fits into the infobox is my main concern. Let alone that it creates redundancy with the name field immediately below the image (if there is one), what caption is correct with a ship name when you have instances like Empress of Britain (1956) and RMS Empress of Canada (1961). I'm very happy for discussion, if you could lay off instantly responding to the revert part of the BRD cycle by posting the link to my revert on my page (I know very well what edit I did) with the comments 'regressive' and 'unhelpful'. As an aside, I think an approach like the milhist person infobox, eg. John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent, could work here, but we'd still need to consider the 'multiple name' issue. Benea (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The two ships you link to look a mess; lots of names. The ones used for the article titles would seem the most apt. Infoboxes are by their nature largely duplicative of other content so I'd expect the table captions to track with the article title in most cases. The Jervis page is doing it wrong, as that's an html th-element, not a caption-element; semantically it means that the name is a header for the image and image caption, but less so the remaining parts of the infobox. And peeking under the hood, it's lacking the html scope attribute (which should be scope="col").
 * I'm rather exasperated by widespread resistance to appropriate change, and I've prior negative experience with this wikiproject: see this old concern Archive 33#Category:Fleet submarine templates that was agreed to be a problem and then not acted on. Wiki spends far to much time talking instead of fixing.
 * As should be clear, I'm concerned with appropriate markup structure, which is well aligned with proper presentation of information. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes is annoying when they have a lot of names and that makes it hard for a neat structure. But why should that mean the caption should be just one name and not all the names? The infobox covers the entire career not just the period the ship went by the name used as the caption. If the milhist infobox is wrong, that seems to me that structures and formats are not widely standardised. If the ships one was the only one out of some standardised format, I'd be sympathetic to the idea that a change was needed. This makes me less so. And I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences, but it was suggested to you that a post at the project would be advisable. You were welcome to be bold, but disappointing you used prior experience as justification not to make a notifying post, and to respond to a revert with an unhelpful message on my talkpage. Fix by all means, but sometimes talking is a necessary step towards that fix. Benea (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Having a half dozen or more names as a top-caption would look awful and few would stand for that. I see the caption as a copy of the page name; that why I used that in that test. All the names should be in the infobox somewhere, of course; either as a list or in a series of sections.
 * No, many infoboxes are improperly structured; people too often go be look, rather that what's structurally appropriate. Thinks are not well standardised because there are so many wilful participants that skew things in inappropriate ways.
 * This set of templates is in its third iteration and still is not really right. And it's clear that much discussion and little outcome is the norm. That's what's ruining the whole project, btw. Didn't I already say the WikiProject Ships doesn't own these templates? I was advised to ping that place because it has ownership issues. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I support Br'er's change, for all the reasons given above (chiefly accessibility), and for the better emission of metadata. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The bigger picture need to be looked at, too. This isn't emitting much metadata; the |+ will produce a proper which is correct semantics. But the whole table-full-of templates instead of an actual infobox wrapper would be next. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When tables captions are being discussed, I usually find that the page HTML Tables with JAWS and MAGic is a good place to look to see why we keep asking for captions. As you can see from that page, table captions provide an index to the tables on a page for anyone using the JAWS (screen reader) or similar. A blind visitor could press INSERT+CTRL+T (on windows) and hear a list of the table captions, then select the one they wanted and jump directly to it. It's a courtesy, a convenience, that we should be supplying for our visually impaired readers, to make their experience of Wikipedia just a little bit better. If you want to change the default styling of a caption because you don't like how it looks - sure go ahead. But please don't let your preferences for what looks pretty stop us from making functional improvements to the encyclopedia. The captions are really not there for us sighted folk; their principal value is for those who can't even see them. --RexxS (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Br'er asked me to have a look at this, so I've whipped up some code to show the desired effect. See Template:Infobox ship career/testcases for an example of current versus new. In addition to adding caption support to infobox ship begin, I've changed the career header to use a single column and generally tidied up the code. Nothing should have broken, but please let me know if I'm missing anything. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The caption is okay, but I'm a bit sceptical about the career header. "Career (country) [flag]" centered together simply does not look good. How about retaining the two-column layout but dropping the country (to a separate field in the infobox)? Tupsumato (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Caption works for me; it's simply a verbose form of "|+" that allows typing '+' via the shortcut "Ship name=". The current two column layout of the career is poor as it causes poor apportionment of the column width when the country name is long; I've changed it from "US" to "Austria-Hungary" to illustrate this deficiency. Also, the 2px white gap looks poor. Illustrations of this also at WT:SHIPS. It would look better with a bit of separation between the country name and flag; l/r aligning them could work, and consider swapping them so that the narrow flag is on the left; the whole left column effect should be narrower to result in less line-wrap of the right-hand fields that have more data in them. This results in a much more readable ibox that extends a bit less down the page due to having a few less lines. nb: I've noticed that a fair number of ships have omitted the country entirely, quite possibly to avoid the line-wrap (omitting results in simply emitting "career"). This would be an unfortunate effect of the current implementation. And, in the interest of better apportionment of column width, a few abbreviation of the longer terms might be helpful; longest common on seems to be "Decommissioned:" — and simply dropping the ':' after each would save about 2.5% of the ibox width. Terima kasih, Chris. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support flipping the flag and country name as Br'er Rabbit suggests since the flag is a standard size, but I prefer to keep the two column format since it helps to keep space between the elements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The flag is narrower then the left column ever is, so it would be best to allocate most of the ibox width to the country name. There should be separation, but the 2px white gap isn't it; it's anomalous as the other headings are not doing this. Allocating maximal space to the country name will minimise line wrap. Omitting "Career" would help; it's an odd term and the notion is implied. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Designer parameter
Can we please have this added as a parameter to the template? Good arguments were made in the archive of this discussion for it. Ernst604 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not against it, but is it really possible to narrow it down to a single person or company? Also, what stage of design are we talking about (concept, basic, manufacturing...)? Tupsumato (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a valid concern. Ships are indeed very complicated vessels which can take several companies to complete from concept to delivery. That said, the "designer" is typically the Naval Architect. Naval Architects can choose subcontractors (engineers, model testers, etc) to perform specialty design duties and pick suppliers for supplying equipment that will be installed. But there is typically only one name/company attached to the role of "designer". Manufacturing would not fall to the designer but instead the shipyard, which incidentally there is a field in the template for.Ernst604 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of Masts as a parameter?
Am noticing that this infobox does not include a parameter for the number of masts on a given ship. I realize that many modern ships do not have masts, but then again there are many that do and this can be a very distinguishing characteristic of a vessel. For example, the Sea Cloud and the Sea Cloud II are both very similar vessels, but the former has four masts and the latter only three. There does not appear to have been any discussion so far about counting the number of masts, and I am curious as to why not. The number of masts seems relatively stable throughout any ship's career, is unambiguous, and is visually relevant for distinguishing some ships. Thoughts? KDS4444 Talk  21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's a sailing ship, you can fit the number of masts in sail plan. Tupsumato (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

HTML syntax
please update Template:Infobox ship career to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_ship_career/sandbox&oldid=572800805 this version] of the sandbox, which updates this template to use html syntax uniformly to match Template:Infobox ship characteristics and Template:Infobox ship class overview.

Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page location

 * Hmm. Why does point to this page? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't speak with certainty, but all of the documentation for, , is all here in this one place because the individual templates are rarely, if ever, used independently.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A shared doc page is not unusual, and nor is a shared talk page. What is unusual is that the shared talk page is on a subpage. I would have put the shared discussion at the top level - -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and moved &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)