Template talk:USS

warship
Isn't this just a more specialized version of ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeBlindMice (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 October 2006


 * In a way, but this displays the hull number in the text, and of course has the "USS" hard coded. Also it's less typing which is why I created it to begin with.  Since you've drawn it back to my attention, I may add a way to control how much is displayed.--J Clear 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Display control added. --J Clear 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
Based on this discussion at WikiProject Ships, I'm requesting this template to be updated to be modified to use ship as a meta-template. The new code is in this version of the template sandbox and was tested in the template testcases page. If there are any problems with these changes, please let me know. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. If there is any problems, please, notify me. Should I protect ship? Ruslik (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I protected Ship, HMS and SS. Ruslik (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar template for Confederate States Navy ships?
I notice that there is no similar template for ships of the Confederate States Navy. Would someone please code one (I would if I could), probably called CoSS as CSS is already in use? Thanks.


 * You can always use ship, as in  → CSS Alabama. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorting
I'm working on List of United States Navy losses in World War II, specifically converting to sortable tables. When the identification of a ship is only letters and numbers (something like USS SC-521 as opposed to an actual name like USS Wasmuth), and the table is sorted by the names of the ships, the numbers are sorted alphabetically instead of numerically. I suppose this is not terribly bad, but it would be nice to find a solution. Any thoughts? — Bwe1862 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with using Subst
In a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, (section link doesn't work) it was noticed that using subst: with this template sometimes produces undesirable effects. produces this output:

For example, see User:Bkonrad/Sandbox2. Note that the output displays correctly in the normal viewing of the page; the unwanted characters only display in the edit window. older ≠ wiser 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The link to the discussion is: Talk: MOS/dab Use of [[USS undefined|USS undefined and similar templates on disambiguation pages]].


 * My guess it that the desired output of a subst'ed USS undefined template using the above example would be: USS Newport News → USS Newport News.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bold text
Is it normal behavior to show the text in bold if it is contained in the subject article page rather than to a separate page? See USS John Warner (SSN-785) for an example. If this is standard behavior, should this not be mentioned in the template documentation?  Nyth 63  20:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a standard behavior on Wikipedia in general for when you link to a page you're already on (see Help:Self link). On the John Warners page, I would remove the template from the last sentence and just italicize the ship's name as normal.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; ' 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Question
If using value 1; hull number (or value 5; "USS" + hull number), why would it still be italics? There are a few articles now where I have used the "USS" template with just value 1, and having just the hull number in italics doesn't look right. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Thanks - the WOLF  child  05:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Like in USS undefined (PT-658). This was recently changed (in all Ship prefixes). Per this talk, comment #3 points to WP:NCSHIPS#Ships_with_hull_number_only.. Does this answer? - DePiep (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but no, it doesn't answer my question. But that's my fault, I should've been more clear. I'm not talking about ships or boats that only have a hull code and number as a 'name', like PT boats or U-boats.
 * I'm referring to times when we are noting ships that have full names (prefix+name+code&number eg: USS Enterprise CV-6), using the "USS" template, but only use value #1 (CV-6) (or value #5 (USS CV-6)) to denote her or them. (I actually don't know of any use for #5)
 * However, I have used value #1 a couple times, for example; articles such as USS Illinois (SSN-786) and USS Indiana (SSN-789) are about subs that share names with previous pairs of battleships, so in the text, they are just referred to USS Illinois (BB-7) & USS Illinois (BB-65) for Illinois and USS Indiana (BB-1) & USS Indiana (BB-58) for Indiana. In full usage, eg: USS Illinois (BB-7), only the name is italicized, not the prefix or the hull code or number, so when the hull code & number (and/or prefix) are isolated using value #1 (or value #5), why are they italicized then? Shouldn't they be non-italicized, just as they when the full name is used?
 * That is question. Sorry about the length, but I hope it's more clear now. Thanks - the WOLF  child  09:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (I'm going to ping on this, and see what he thinks, since he made the comments in the link you posted. - wolf)
 * Ping didn't work because you didn't include a  signature.
 * At Template_talk:Ship my comment was about format control value 5, not about format control value 1. The example given above:
 * is a redlink because the rendered link includes the prefix and brackets around the hull number:
 * USS undefined (PT-658) → USS undefined (PT-658)
 * Neither nor  (nor any of the other ship prefix templates) will work for hull-number only ship articles when the format value is 1.   will work this way:
 * → PT-658 (because, for the purposes of en.wiki, PT-658 is the name)
 * or to avoid the redirect and for a more informative tool tip:
 * → MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT PT-658
 * The old version of this template would have rendered the Indiana and Illinois examples with brackets: (BB-7)
 * It seems to me that the format control value 1 code in needs to be tweaked to remove the italic markup from the rendering.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ttm, I was thinking the same thing. - the WOLF  child  11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the format control value 1 code in needs to be tweaked to remove the italic markup from the rendering.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ttm, I was thinking the same thing. - the WOLF  child  11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ttm, I was thinking the same thing. - the WOLF  child  11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Still thinking. First of all, styling (eg use italics, brackets) is unrelated to being redlink/bluelink. These are independent (good).
 * nor will work for hull-number only ship articles when the format value is 1 -- same issue. The template "works" in two ways: 1. spell target page, 2. format the label. These are and should be independent. So first an editor enters the target page elements, next s/he pick a label (showing) format. When mixing up, no one can explain that to the Editor (someone know how to document the up parameter well?).
 * Could I get a reset on which issues we are clarifying and solving here? (brackets?, format codes 1, 5?, pagename vs. shown name? Italicising some names?). (And, ask me, shall I make a demo of what is used to be in 2017?)- DePiep (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, what it boils down to is this; when we use a full ship identifier, eg: USS Enterprise CV-6, only the ship name (Enterprise) is italicized, while the prefix (USS), hull code (CV) and hull number (6) are not italicized. But when we isolate just the hull code and number (CV-6) using the ((USS)) template value #1, they are then italicized, but should not be. , DePiep, and anyone else following this, would it be possible to add an optional |italics="on/off" parameter to the template? That would solve everything. Ttm also made a good point about the brackets, could that be addressed as well? (though I don't think they are as important as the italics issue because they can be added manually) Thanks - the WOLF  child  22:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, technically we could add a yes/no of course, working fine. We could also add balloons and music. But who is gonna document that, i.e., explain and make usable to an editor? This will only complicate ship naming: article, presentation, intentions. So a "Neg" advice from me. Better would be, that someone describes the logic behind it. (and btw, I'd first think of adding another format number, like 7. See my most serious point about targetpage and label). - DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WTF is your problem? No, I'm not looking for "balloons" or "music", nor am I looking for rude and snarky replies. There is a problem with this template, specifically unnecessary italics, and that's why I posted here in the first place. Quite frankly, I don't know how to make this any clearer to you, but if you still can't grasp what this problem is, then you're probably not the one who should be considering trying to fix it.
 * Your "most serious points" have no relevance to this issue; this is not about "red links", or "blue links", this is not about "hull-number only ship articles", and "adding another format number, like 7" will not fix this.
 * You know what would fix this? Disabling needless italics in values #1 & #5 of this template.
 * Hence the reason I asked if adding an "on/off" parameter is possible, so that USS Illinois (BB-7) would look the way it's supposed to look; BB-7.
 * It will in no way "complicate ship naming: article, presentation, [or] intentions".
 * And what's so difficult about adding a simple instruction? "add |italics=off to disable italics" Boom. Done.
 * We have a bah-zillion templates with countless numbers of instructions for countless optional parameters just like that.
 * Most, if not all, editors specifically using this template are doing do because they are aware that ship's names are italicized while prefixes, hull codes and hull numbers are not.
 * What other "logic" do you need?
 * So while you're "Neg advise" is noted, maybe you can go "help" someone else, and I'll see if someone with a better grasp of this issue, and a better attitude, can fix this. Thanks anyways, Have a nice day. - the WOLF  child  23:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In defense of Editor DePiep's negative vote for italic, it is harder than just Boom. Done. I too, am opposed to it because I don't think that it is needed.  For format control value 5, I think that the hull designation should be italicized.  For format control value 1, no italics.  The fix is to remove the italic markup from this line in :
 * and for completeness, format control value 5:
 * Without objection I shall make this change.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and for completeness, format control value 5:
 * Without objection I shall make this change.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Ttm, and thanks for the reply. I just want to make clear that I referring to the posting of instructions, not the coding involved in making the change in the first place. I'm sure that's not a simple matter (I know very little of coding and formatting of templates). As for value #5, I already mentioned above that I wasn't aware of any situations where it would be applicable. Could you give me an example, just for edification sake? (Then perhaps I can see where "USS CV-6" would be used and italicized). I think we're on the same page for value #1 and if you could make that change, it would be appreciated. While you're at it, do you think brackets should be addressed with the template? Or just leave it to editors add them manually? Thanks again, and Cheers - the WOLF  child  00:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tpm?
 * I can imagine the possibility of a ship that has a hull number and and that sometime in its history gained or lost its 'name' so format control value 5 might be of use then. Other than that no idea why it would be used.  But I've learned that as soon as one says: 'no one will need anything like that', someone needs something like that.  So, for the sake of completeness, format control value 5 exists (for this same reason we keep format control value 4).
 * Don't understand what you mean by addressing the brackets?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't understand what you mean by addressing the brackets?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bah, sorry about that T t m, long day, longer night. Anyway, the list above looks good;
 * #1 fixes the issue I was concerned about,
 * I see now you meant that only the hull code & number were italicized, not the prefix for #5 (still don't see the use, but I'm not worried about it).
 * Is there to be no value '0' (zero)?
 * #4 is the same as no value?
 * And about brackets, I thought you mentioned them before for some reason. I do see that the hull code & number (BB-7) is bracketed by #3, #4 and no value. But like I said, they can be added manually if using value #1, so if you're ok with it like this, so am I. Thanks for putting this together. Have you implemented it yet? If not, do you intend to soon?
 * Your efforts are appreciated, Cheers - the WOLF  child  02:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I can get where your your angryness comes from, I 'm sorry for my distraction. Maybe my unhelpful response illustrates the problem: even for someone involved in this, it is very hard to understand what is the issue and what is needed; and more so it would be for a regular editor just using the template.
 * Some minor replies: yes #4 format option is same as default "(blank)" now. This nicely prevents unneeded error messages. So testing #1–#6 would cover all (aside from yes).
 * Current and sandbox version of Ship's version (which uses) are in the testcases. At this moment, it illustrates the change  proposes per sandbox.
 * Re the brackets: they can be added manually if using value #1: in what situations would this be needed? I'd say in this format #1 is a is a stand-alone disambiguation term, and so not to be bracketed. - DePiep (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply and explanation. I myself have been known to make sarcastic or harsh responses sometimes when I'm think someone is being a wp:dick, but as were having what appeared to be to a friendly discussion about a template issue, your remarks caught me off guard. But, apology accepted, (water under the bridge and all that).
 * Moving on... if you read my second post above, you'll see that I noted where the ((USS)) template (with value #1 applied), was used in the prose sections of articles USS Illinois (SSN-786) and USS Indiana (SSN-789), leaving just the hull codes & numbers; BB-7 & BB-65 and BB-1 & BB-58, in the text. They were italicized when they shouldn't be. But, Ttm seems to have addressed this problem with his proposed change. You can see the 'before and after' effect; where value #1 currently italicizes the isolated hull code & number (that otherwise isn't, and shouldn't be, italicized), they are now sans italics in Ttm's proposal (except for value #5, but that's not a concern for me right now). - Thanks again DP.
 * - this is the comment I was referring to, where you wrote; "The old version of this template would have rendered the Indiana and Illinois examples with brackets: (BB-7). But just same, let's forget about brackets, it's a non-issue. It's probably better to not have them as they can be added manually, outside the template, if needed. Thanks again, Ttm - the WOLF  child  10:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * About the change. I can understand that in general, hull number in #1 should not be italicised (see the IIllinois cases shown here; same as before March 10 change). However, there are exceptions as the OP points out : when the hull number/pennant number is used as the base name (no base name provided):  [[Motor Torpedo Boat PT-658 ]],  [[German submarine U-238 ]] . How do these and should these look when formatted? See testcases#Hull_ID_for_name. Format #1 and #5 now break.
 * First the question for this exception: in #1 and #5, should this name/hullID be italicised? (I have no preference, but for being systematically).
 * For now, three options are in sight for format #1:
 * Expected: German submarine U-238 with/without italics TBD
 * Input 1: When input GERMAN SUBMARINE U-238 (Shows an error in Preview + categorise)
 * Does not work out, while the editor may think this is the hull number.
 * Input 2: GERMAN SUBMARINE undefined (error + categorise)
 * No way, because this would create bracketed article name [[German submarine (U-238) ]] ❌.
 * Input 3: Instruct the Editor to evade the issue "in these cases use format #2 [shows in italics]".
 * Missing option: so far, the #1 option "only the hull ID, upright font" is not available for these exceptions.
 * For format #5:
 * Expected German submarine U-238 with/without italics TBD
 * In general, confusion or different expectation all arise from double meaning of the name/hullID in this. We could also rule: "in this case, hullID is always treated as the base name -- full stop". - DePiep (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(break)
Actually, I'm the "OP" and I'm the one that first introduced the Illinois (and Indiana) example(s). I had already said I wasn't addressing boats that used only hull codes and/or numbers as theirs names, such as PT boats and U boats. What I was addressing was the more typical boats names (again, using Enterprise as an example); As you can see, only the ship name is italicized. So when we use the USS template with value #1 applied, and it was italicizing the hull code and hull number, that to me was a problem that needed to be fixed, and hopefully we now have that fix. (btw - I was specifically addressing the issue with the "USS" template, so German U-boats don't really apply here. I realize that this template comes from the ((ship)) template, but I wanted to address the italics issue when using the ((USS)) template on US Navy ships.) Thanks again - the WOLF  child  10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ship identifier: USS Enterprise (CV-6)
 * Ship prefix: USS
 * Ship name: Enterprise
 * Hull code: CV
 * Hull number: 6
 * (ec) Oops, it was not in the original post; the exception was pointed to by Ttm: what if hullID is used as ship's name? My remaining question is: treat [[German submarine U-238]] exactly the same as USS Enterprise (CV-6) (U-238 is ship's name not hullID, implying errors in format #1 and #5 b/c hullID is missing)? OR could we help the confused Editor somehow?
 * re "the "USS" template" -- sure, but that involves example [[Motor Torpedo Boat PT-658 ]] . And in general, I prefer predictable working, single simple documentation & NCSHIPS. - DePiep (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that may be the reason Ttm kept the italics active with value #5, for boats such as U-571 and PT-109. I can't speak for him though, so maybe he can confirm or clarify that. But he found the fix for value #1 which was the reason I posted here in the first place. - the WOLF  child  01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not that reason. Without 'names', ships like U-571 and PT-109 are named for Wikipedia's purposes by the hull classification symbols/pennant numbers.  Such ships must have been commissioned US ships in order to use the  template so must use .  Because U-571 and PT-109 are 'names', we write:
 * →  →  PT-109
 * I can imagine a case where some ship had a series of 'names' that included a time when that ship was unnamed except by its hull classification symbol (or a pennant number): IX-123. Perhaps this ship was commissioned as USS IX-123 and then perhaps given a 'name', USS Neversink (IX123).  Perhaps she became notable in the Wikipedia sense so now we have an article: USS Neversink (IX-123).  That article might have incoming links from other articles that discuss Neversink before she became Neversink.  Editors might want to refer to her as USS IX-123 in those articles so would write.
 * This is pretty much the only case that has come to mind for the possible use of format control value 5.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up, and all your assistance here. Cheers - the WOLF  child  20:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sort of no: this again evades the issue. The question is: how to handle ship name labels that have no base name. Example: German submarine U-238 . The introduction of "Neversink" does not answer this at all.
 * As far as I can get: "In these cases, enter the hullID as the ships's name, and don't use format options #1, #5". (IOW: editor, by now it is the base ship name -- not a hull ID any more). - DePiep (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can get: "In these cases, enter the hullID as the ships's name, and don't use format options #1, #5". (IOW: editor, by now it is the base ship name -- not a hull ID any more). - DePiep (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

But listed on the Template:Ship page is the template GS undefined, and it even uses German submarine U-39 (1938) as an example. Isn't Template:GS and it's various values/parameters what you're looking for here? If not, I'm sure can help you. - the WOLF  child  08:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not looking for a template. I am looking for an NCSHIPS-level answer for exactly this situation: "The hull-ID to be used as base name (and so italicised)". will follow. Examples abundant in this thread. - DePiep (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting coincidence, I just edited USS Southern Seas (PY-32), and the article mentioned another ship; USS YMS-388 (which doesn't have an arricle, but USS YMS-328 does). I wasn't sure which template to use... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  06:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
Change SOMETHING to SOMETHING ELSE because the template is broken and is making all the text small after it. Bod (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to have fixed itself? Bod (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It looked broken for me too, working again now. Thanks for submitting this. Ggpur (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
This template has been broken for over a month, and makes many pages unreadable by drastically reducing the font size. It seems other shipping/naval templates my have the same issue. Please fix so the articles that this template is transcluded in can be read again. 1.129.104.246 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Try purging your browser and see if that helps. I had the same problem, and it seems to have solved the issue for me. See Purge for more information. However, I don't know if purging is a permanent solution or not. - BilCat (talk)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I can't see any problem on my end. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * They weren't specific because they didn't know what the problem was. It was caused elsewhere, anf has now been fixed. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)