Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 1

List of United States submarine classes
I've got a question about the annotation format I'm using at List of United States submarine classes, comments welcome on the talk page. Elde 05:27, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

List of fleets
I added a List of fleets, in imitation of the List of armies. It currently links to the US Navy page (which lists the current fleets), and to a couple of named British fleets of the twentieth century. -- Walt Pohl 17:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea, there's a bunch of un-indexed historicals randomly scattered about, like Asiatic Fleet. It wouldn't hurt to repeat the US Navy list either, the article is pretty long and it would be easy to miss the fleet list. Stan 19:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Templates for ship articles
Noting the above type of message, I would suggest that creating MediaWiki messages for ship classes would be an excellent idea. I'm going to try it out using the Iowa class ships. David Newton 20:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thinking again, DANFS as a source is another very good thing for a custom message. David Newton 20:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are now a couple of MediaWiki message elements for classes of ships. It would be nice if someone listed them all on this page, or a subpage. (See the page for countries for an example of what I mean: WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes.)


 * There are more than a couple. I've covered every British and American dreadnought battleship class, all British and American fleet and light fleet aircraft carriers, and a few others besides. Still, a list of them doesn't seem unreasonable. David Newton 21:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I saw that you added the page. Excellent.  How do you feel about actually including the footers themselves? That makes it easy to compare the formatting, etc. Also it lets you admire your handiwork. :-) -- Walt Pohl 22:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there anywhere where 'official' template ship data tables are kept / discussed? I see them on numerous pages but I can't find the source. &mdash;Morven 06:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if i'm too late, but the tables are located at User:David Newton/Tables. SoLando 19:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not strictly true. It is true that my page has the most blank ship tables around (varying only by the ensign/jack they have at the top, apart from the Military Sealift Command one which has cargo capacity as an additional row). However, I did not create that table design originally. I merely went round various articles and saw the tables, and created templates in one place which is convenient to me. I also saw the table list on the Infobox page. TUF-CAT put it up on there on 4 February. I'm not sure where it came from prior to that. Still, my page does have the templates listed in one place. David Newton 06:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Infoboxes
The guys at WikiProject Aircraft have come up with a table format. It is now being rolled out on aircraft pages. I think it looks pretty good. Should we make use of it or something similar for ships? Bobblewik 19:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Distinguishing ships of same name
Recommend the following hierarchy for ship name disambiguation:
 * 1) Designation and hull number (i.e., BB-64)
 * 2) Launch year (if known)
 * 3) Purchase year (if known)
 * 4) Commissioning year (if known)
 * 5) Year of first action

Paddle steamer Waverley
having come across this missing page, I've put some effort into filling the need and have taken care to use the title Waverley (boat) already on the disambiguation page. The result has an inelegant and inappropriate title at the top - the P.S. Waverley is referred to as a ship, but never as a boat. Ian McCrorie's Clyde Pleasure Steamers uses ship or steamer throughout, with the sole exception (at a quick glance) of "The 'teetotal' boat" Ivanhoe" (1880), and even this he refers to in the text as a ship or as a steamer. As it would also simplify typing links (paddle steamer Waverley instead of paddle steamer Waverley) I propose moving the page accordingly, and will do so in the next few days. Please let me know if this raises any problems, - dave souza 07:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The old saw about boats fitting in ships but not ships in boats suggests "ship" rather than "boat". Any of PS Waverley, paddle steamer Waverley, Waverley (paddle steamer), or Waverley (ship) seems fine to me. I've been pondering rules for civilian ship article titling for a while, not ready to write something down yet though. Stan 12:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice - page moved to paddle steamer Waverley, linked pages working ok. On reflection afterwards I can see the advantage of PS, TS, SS, RMS, MV etc. for a standard naming scheme, but paddle steamer seemed right.- dave souza 20:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How to handle templates/messages for 2 classes of Farragut destroyers?
I've got a list of 8 WWII Farragut-class destroyers (starting with Farragut (DD-348)), but I see there's already a Template:Farragut class destroyer template & Wikimedia Message (starting with Farragut (DDG-37)). All the ships under the existing template are DDG guided missile destroyers, and those ships started life as DL- designations. How should we disambiguate between the two classes of destoyers? I don't want to the class description to get too specific (that is, I'd rather not move the existing one to Template:Farragut class guided missile destroyer, and then create the WWII DD list as Template:Farragut class destroyer), but that seems to be the simplest way to handle it. Recommendations? Scott B 19:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Categories win! Checking Category:Ship classes, I see we have a Town class cruiser (1910) and Town class cruiser (1936), so use of date (presumably launch of the first member, or else lead ship), seems like a useful guide. Stan 21:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh. didn't even know about Category:Ship classes. I followed your suggestion, and we now have Template:Farragut class destroyer (1934) and Template:Farragut class destroyer (1958) templates, as well as entries for Farragut class destroyer (1934) and Farragut class destroyer (1958). Thanks, Stan, for dismbiguating the two class pages.  However since I moved the old Template:Farragut class destroyer to point to the (1958) template, there is a redirect at the old template page.  How should we disambiguate the templates?  Just using a "disambig" message in the Template pages will cause the disambiguation message to be included in every ship page that includes the template, which could be confusing.


 * I don't think you can disambig the templates, in fact Template:Farragut class destroyer should be deleted once it's not used by any article, so nobody in the future attempts to use it by accident (little chance of it being revived, since the other two already cover all the possible ships). Stan 15:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories
The project page needs some advice on how to categorize ships and other vessels. By nationality? By type? By function? By period? Category:Ships shows that there isn't yet consistency in this area. Gdr 15:29, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)


 * Why, all of them, of course! 1/2 :-) Type/function is probably the "main" system of subcategories, nationality is for mainly for naval ships and nicely subdivides some large categories ("US destroyers"). Period I think is a little shakier to define - do you want to list Constitution as a WWII-era ship because she happened to be afloat and in commission at the time? I've not been so keen on categories for each class of warship, that makes for very small and 1-member categories, which isn't so useful. Stan 14:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That's sensible advice, but you need some recommendations on the WikiProject Ships. Some people like to add an article to a category and all its parent categories: for example there were hundreds of US naval ships in Category:Ships when they should be in Category:US naval ships or maybe some sub-category of that. A set of naming recommendations would prevent anomalies like Category:US naval ships versus Category:U.S. Navy destroyers. Gdr 08:12, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's getting to be about time to codify. I'll add something for people to take potshots at. :-)

Another idea - for ship classes that are big enough to have had a Template footer designed for them, the category can be included in the footer and therefore automatically be placed on the relevant pages. I've done this with the Wickes class destroyers template as an experiment. Thoughts? --Rlandmann 03:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of a catagorization in the ship footer template. One less thing to remember to add. Concur that class of ship is a less useful catagory - besides, it's already a class and we have a lot of good info on that already. Prefer not to do the period, as previously noted, some ships are long-lived. Important to remember that some ships will be in multiple catagories as they have been converted (destroyer to tender to transport). What about early vessels, which are schooners, brigs and the like? User:Jinian date


 * The trouble with putting the category in the template is that the article won't alphabetize in the right place. Gdr 08:12, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)


 * Templates can have parameters now... Stan 13:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've added a first draft of a categorization policy - it doesn't cover all the subcategories yet, so needs a little expansion still. Stan 14:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * So to clarify how the subcategories interact, should Category:Battleships be a subcategory of both Category:Ships by type and Category:Naval ships?


 * Yes, that seems logical. Stan 05:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, it seems to me that if there's a Category:US naval ships and Category:Battleships, the articles themselves should best go under Category:US Navy battleships, a subcategory of both of them. --Rlandmann 01:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the "little expansion" that I'm now too bleary-eyed to work on tonight. There a couple things to resolve, like whether to prefer "Royal Navy battleships" vs "British battleships" and so forth. Stan 05:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Category:Royal Navy battleships would have the advantage of fitting more logically beneath Category:Royal Navy (perhaps with "Royal Navy ships" or "Ships of the Royal Navy" between them.... --Rlandmann 06:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup. Amusingly, we seem to have Category:British naval ships and Category:Royal Navy ships to choose between. Stan 13:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Any objections by anyone to my gradually moving all "US naval" subcategories to "United States Navy" and "British" subcategories to "Royal Navy"? --Rlandmann 04:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While most subcats in US naval could be moved, the category needs to remain since US naval should include US Navy, US Coast Guard, US Revenue Cutter Service. Jinian 15:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the United States Merchant Marine which has a few notable Gallant Ships of WWII http://www.usmm.org/gallantships.html including SS Stephen Hopkins - Petersam 21:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That is also true of the British subcategory. Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Merchant Fleet Auxiliary ships are just as much naval ships as Royal Navy ships. David Newton 17:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * On a separate issue, can we agree to use "United States" or "US" or "U.S." - we have dup'ed categories because of this. Personally, I like the unambigious "United States" It also helps in alphabeticizing with United Arab Emirates and the like. Jinian 15:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categories for ships and boats
I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but I think it's worth revisiting. The category hierarchy under Category:Water vessels has separate categories for Category:Ships and Category:Boats. There is a similar dichotomy under Category:Water transport for Category:Ship types and Category:Boat types. This dichotomy is (1) arbitrary, because neither "ship" and "boat" has a single fixed meaning; (2) unhelpful, because it complicates the hierarchy below as you have to figure out what types go in what category (and what types in both). I think the organization would benefit from a single category of vessels, and another of vessel types. Comments? Gdr 08:43, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)


 * I discussed this with User:Dave souza recently, don't remember exactly where though. For me the overriding concern is to keep category names simple and obvious; "vessel" could mean almost anything, and even "water vessel" includes bathtubs. :-) so while it's fine as a member of the hierarchy, it seems like bureaucratic sadism to make "water vessels" a category that everybody has to use a lot. In practice, 99% of the objects in question are obviously either ships or boats (nobody is going to call an aircraft carrier a "boat", except disparagingly :-) ), and for the remainder, it works to make an arbitrary decision, or put them in both if there's an intractable disagreement. Look around the category system, some of the names are stretching all the way across the page because people are trying to include comprehensive documentation in the category name. Are categories redirectable? That might be one way to cover the options. Stan 16:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Categories can't be redirected at present. I agree that "Water vessels" is not the way to go; indeed it would be nice to cut out that layer of the category hierarchy altogether. The Chambers English Dictionary gives "any floating craft" as the third meaning of "ship" so I suggest using Category:Ships for both ships and boats, and Category:Ship types for types of ships and boats. Gdr 17:38, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)


 * Dinghies as a subcategory of ships? People would look at us funny. :-) But seriously, I think that even though the ship/boat distinction in categories looks untidy, it will correspond better with what editors are thinking when they go to assign categories. Stan 05:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What about submarines? I know that they're generally "boats" in the parlance of most (all?) navies, but will people look for them there? --Rlandmann 06:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Category:Submarines is a sub-category of both Category:Ships and Category:Boats. If the consensus is to separately classify ships and boats, I'm happy to go along with that. But it would be a shame if the distinction started to replicate itself all the way down the hierarchy: "Museum boats", "British boats", "US naval boats", "US naval boats of World War II", etc. (It might not happen because there are so few notable boats, but it only takes one to make a category.)


 * Submarines are called "boats" by tradition, probably because the earliest ones were boat-sized - crews of 10, etc. Having them as a subcat of boats isn't critically necessary, but is a handy bit of navigation for someone who's unsure. Stan 13:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I tidied out Category:Water vessels. Would anyone object if I deleted it and moved Category:Boats and Category:Ships up one level to Category:Water transport? Gdr 09:22, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)


 * OK by me. Stan 13:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed: Having tried out Water vessels it's turned out to be an ugly answer to this problem which was discussed under Category talk:Ships. Merging ships and boats is my preferred option; logically Boats might be the better main heading, but Ships is more complete and already has too many layers of sub-sub-categories. Noting that the Chambers' definition supports Ships as the parent category, here are my suggestions: Take these as ideas from a beginner with a pay-per-minute dial-up connection and a preference for not having to click a lot of times to find what you want - dave souza 12:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete Category:Water vessels: first re-categorise any pages or categories directed to it.
 * 2) Change the parent category of Boats to Ships, and add a redefinition of what boats includes - or delete boats as above. Boats could be restricted to be small vessels - but this invites hidden sub-categories, which should be avoided...
 * 3) Avoid hidden sub-sub-categories. It's not intuitive to look for submarines under Ships by type, especially when other ship types are on the main level. For the uninitiated the category structure is a hindrance: at present you can go layers down to find one article. My preference would be to have all main types on the top layer as a sub-category of ships. A workaround would be to have a list with the heading giving links to hidden categories, but this would have to be manually updated.
 * 4) Accept that articles can have a use for more than one category. Scottish steamships is useful for relating their history to Category:Scotland, but irrelevant to Category:Ships where they belong in Steamships without further sub-categorisation.
 * 5) Wherever appropriate, try to get articles off Ships main page and into appropriate sub-categories: there are a whole lot of USS ships which presumably should be under naval ships somewhere.


 * Just want to second about layers of subcategory - to me the ideal size of a category is 30-60 articles, basically a screenful. If the Peruvians only ever had one battleship, say, it's not an affront to national honor just to leave the article in Category:Battleships. A little study and calculation will give us a pretty good idea of how big a category will get in a "complete" WP; if we average 10 subcats and 30 articles in a category, then three clicks get one to 30,000 articles, which is the most awesome nautical encyclopedia in existence. (Comment by User:Stan Shebs)


 * I'd still make a case for (hypothetical category) "Peruvian battleships". One feature of the Category system that seems sadly under-utilised is the way that Category pages can hold links to provide additional navigation through the tree. So the "Peruvian battleships" Category page could hold links to other nations' battleships - and better still, this could be implemented with a Template. To see an example of what I'm talking about, see Category:Australian aircraft. "Peruvian battleships" could similarly hold direct, one-click links to "Peruvian destroyers" and "Peruvian cruisers" as well... --Rlandmann 23:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Responding to Dave souza: Gdr 15:18, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. Done.
 * 2) Agree. (But not done yet.)
 * 3) Disagree. We have at least four schemes for categorizing ships: by type (schooners, submarines), by era (American Civil War, World War II), by nationality (French ships, Spanish ships), and by miscellaneous attributes (Museum ships, shipwrecks). It seems wrong to me to lump these schemes together, so that Shipwrecks are next to Spanish ships and Sloops. In particular if they were all moved up to Category:Ships there would be about 60 sub-categories. But I'm willing to be persuaded. See Category:History for another subject area organized like this.
 * 4) In the particular case of Scottish steamships I am neutral, but I disagree in general. I think it needs to depend on the relative sizes of the categories. If there are only 10 steamships it makes little sense to further categorize them, but if there are 100 steamships I think it does, in which case Scottish might be a sensible sub-category.
 * 5) Agree. But someone has to do the work! I moved about 50 articles out of Category:Ships and into the right place. Maybe you can help with the rest?


 * Thanks for the progress.
 * 3.	this is something I'd like to look at and think about, but to me it's not intuitive at the moment: for example, why naval ships and not merchant ships? I'll have to work at understanding this.
 * 4.	in the particular case, Queen Marys (2 of them) are tucked away in Scottish steamships because of relevancy to Scottish history, but other RMS's are on the main list: for general users I'd think RMS, PS etc. are better subdivisions. I didn't set up Scottish steamships, and have wondered if Scottish ships will work better for Category:Scotland. If you don't mind, I'll think it over and perhaps add categories to these articles.
 * 5.	will do. The weekend phone rates are cheaper, will tackle some then.
 * p.s. there may be more boats around than some expect: I'm just thinking about doing articles about some puffers and the Vital Spark - "the smertest boat in the tred" - dave souza 22:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * 3. Era can sometimes be harder to define, since the career of a naval vessel may span several major conflicts and it might be better to leave this as a "secondary" classification that could be added if and when relevant. On the other hand, it could be arbitrarily set as the decade of the ship's launch or commissioning (French destroyers 1930-1939). In either case, it could converge at "Ships by era" or "Naval ships by era".


 * I think it's probably best for Miscellaneous attributes to remain directly under ships - it's better than "Ships by miscellaneous attributes" :)


 * "Merchant ships" would make a logical parallel Category branch. --Rlandmann 23:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Better move fast then - Category:Merchant ships exists, but is empty and Gdr listed it for deletion today. I don't have a strong opinion either way; there is parallelism, but its subcats would be under type or nationality also, so not much "value-add". Stan 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * back to 2. - having looked through the ships sub-categories, I now feel that Boats should become a sub-category of Ships, and should continue to contain sub-categories of anything people might go to Boats for, thus giving an alternative route to the categories for canal boats, submarines, tugs, corvettes etc. as well as dinghies and rowing boats. In addition, Categories: Boat types and Ship types should also appear as sub-categories of Ships. Any comments?   By the way, Category:Scottish ships fits nicely into Category:Scotland and Category:British ships (under Ships by nationality), and it's my intention to move the articles over from Category:Scottish steamships shortly. Merchant ships seems well enough covered in Ships by type  - dave souza 20:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proper sorting
Since many ships with the same names are also the same types of ships (i.e., all Whipples are destroyers), to ensure they are properly sorted, I suggest that we use the pipe trick and number each ship. So the first Whipple would be Category:U.S. Navy destroyers|Whipple 1. The second Whipple would be Whipple 2. This works even if the names jump ship type, when they are of the same era. Unless anyone objects, I'll add this standard to the Project page.


 * That's certainly workable. Another trick is to add leading zeros, since lexigographic sort on DD-069 and DD-217 does what you want, when just DD-69 would not. Stan 05:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Renamed/reflagged ships
HI I was wondering the best way to name ship pages. Some ships have several pages for themselves because they changed name. This seems rather.... silly really. If a ship spent say, 3 years in a particular navy, and with a particular name, why have a whole page just for that? all the stuff on that page is going to be repeated on the previous name and future name pages for that ship, and users will have to click through 3 pages to read the whole history of the ship, and they'll end up reading parts of it 3 times (maybe even with discrepencies). I don't see the point. If ship name 1 was renamed to ship name 2, put it on page ship name 1 under its original country, and link all mentions of the ship under any name to that. that page will have the whole history of the ship. no repetition necessary :). Is there an actual reason for doing it the current way? It's not like users won't realise that the ship has changed names. SpookyMulder 12:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If anybody's interested, I put in my 2c on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Stan 14:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More categorization
A couple fine points of categorization: I'd like us to standardize on "U.S. Navy" for all subcats of (surprise) U.S. Navy ships, because for some types the spelled-out name is unduly long, and it's helpful to editors to be consistent so they can type without doing a lookup first. Also, I'd like to have a general rule that small ship classes don't get their own subcategories, require about a minimum of 8-10 vessels to justify a dedicated category. Stan 14:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier, I prefer United States to US. I always end up looking up whether its "US", "U.S." or "U. S." -- Or we could skip this entirely and use "American", but that will only get us into another mess.
 * On the idea of ship classes, I like using them no matter what the size of the class. It's a useful category even if its small. However, I've been thinking about not using the ship class as mutually exclusive of the larger category. So, for example, USS Wickes would be in both the "Wickes class" category and in the "USN destroyer" category. I know that this type of thing would be helpful to me as I'm looking up a ship - or is that what the list is for? Thoughts? Jinian 15:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Category:United States Navy escort aircraft carriers just seems like more of a mouthful vs Category:U.S. Navy escort aircraft carriers. Normally I prefer to spell out, but shorter category names seem better than long ones. The problem with categories for classes is that you can't find a vessel without clicking on every single subcat, which is not very efficient, especially for capital ships with their one-member classes. On cat + supercat, that's actually what the Germans do; their equivalent to Category:People is impressively large, many thousands. But English seems to have a general no-supercat policy, so I think it would be uphill battle to keep random editors from deleting supercats just for ships. I have hopes that someday a category page will have an "also list articles in subcategories" button, which would finesse some of the problems. Stan 21:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So far, Category:United States Navy ships has been preferred over Category:U.S. Navy ships by an enormous margin (the latter contains only four articles). It seems unnecessary to change it this late in the game, especially since the former is the official designation. Would it be acceptable to keep "United States Navy" for the parent category and then abbreviate U.S. for the sub-categories? I don't much like that solution, either&mdash;United States is the correct name, and it's already been put into use for most of the sub-cats. Most of the articles in the sub-categories only go in the one category, so it's not like we really need to worry about long names as long as it doesn't get ridiculous. In any case, I really don't like Category:US naval ships&mdash;in the U.S., the abbreviation is U.S., not US, and that is, in fact, what the U.S. Navy uses (when it is necessary to abbreviate). [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Start from Category:United States Navy and look at all the subcats recursively; there are lots of articles under both "U.S." subcategories and "United States" subcategories, so sooner or later somebody will need to do a lot of recatting not matter what. My chief goal is to put an end to the random variation of category names; "U.S. Navy xxx" has the advantage of brevity, desirable when "xxx" is long. In any case, I wouldn't want to change Category:United States Navy. Stan 03:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Also see Category:Members of the U.S. armed forces for cats in other services, and Category:United States itself for amusing indecisiveness about nomenclature. Stan 04:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why keep "United States Navy" and not "United States Navy ships"? It seems to me to be basically the same thing. It's also a question of which is more important: brevity or accuracy? Technically, United States Navy is the correct term, but U.S. Navy is an acceptable abbreviation. Is shortening the category names by nine characters worth the (admittedly small) loss of accuracy in nomenclature?
 * In many cases, the confusion arises because Americans are expected to use adjectives other than American&mdash;but editors do not consistently use United States, U.S., or US, because none of these is the standard designation. (Admittedly, this is not really relevant to the military categories, since the actual names realy are United States Navy, etc., but it does explain some of the confusion under Category:United States.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 13:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "U.S." is a completely accurate substitute for "United States", in fact the USN style guide mentioned in another discussion below specifically allows "U.S." as an equivalent adjective. So I don't think it's any kind of a tradeoff between brevity and accuracy. If there are no downsides, brevity is preferable, especially for repetitious things like categories, which are gradually creeping across the bottoms of articles... :-) Stan 01:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I still prefer United States at least for the parent category Category:United States Navy ships (perhaps with Category:U.S. naval ships as another parent that includes U.S. ships that aren't Navy), but I'm okay with "U.S." so long as:
 * It is "U.S." and not "US", and
 * I don't have to do the massive re-categorization that would be necessary.
 * I tend to prefer Category:United States Navy ships primarily because the benefits seem small compared to the effort that would be required. ;) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 04:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved everything to Category:United States Navy ships. Among the subclasses there's only Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, Category:U.S. Navy destroyers and their subcategories that have "U.S." instead of "United States" in the category. Gdr 19:37, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Navyphotos images
User:Gdr has been placing Template:Copyrighted-navyphotos on images from http://www.navyphotos.co.uk and removing them from articles on the grounds that their permission is too restrictive.

What, exactly, is the permission given for those photos. I had assumed that they were in the category 'Free use if credit is given' since that was how I read the statement in this WikiProject, but he is stating that the permission was Wikipedia-only and thus unacceptable. It states that User:David Newton has the permission letter; could this be obtained to place on Wikipedia and answer definitively?

It seems to me that most of the photos there are expired of copyright anyway. Crown copyright in such photos is 50 years from publication. &mdash;Morven 21:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was only repeating what it says on WikiProject Ships. I know no more than you do. I just wanted to be cautious. The copyright in the original photos may have expired, but that in the digital reproductions of the photos may not have done. Gdr 05:38, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC) P.S. In each case I think the replacement is more interesting as well as having a more certain copyright status.

Merchant Ships
As a new contributor I have a few queries and requests. Thanks Oldfarm 04:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What category do the WWII MARAD vessels (Liberty ships, Victory ships, Tankers, etc) fall under?
 * What Ensigns, Jacks, Pennants, and Other Vexillologs would the War Shipping Administration ships use?
 * On a similar subject how about the Category for the US Navy Armed Guard and the Britishs DEMs
 * Where would the WWII Merchant Marine medals go?. Some have the same names as military decorations.
 * I have hardcopy of a great number of the WWII era house flags for various shipping companies, but no talent for producing digital images from them. Any suggestions?
 * I have put up two pages on Liberty ships, SS John W. Brown and SS Henry Bacon. I would appreciate any comments on style, layout etc before continuing with my notes on about 200 more Libertys.

You'll need to make new categories for those ships, perhaps something like Category:World War II American merchant ships.
 * I would like to add my info on the ships built under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The vessels include American, British and other WWII allies. The ship were built between 1936 and 1952. Can you suggest a concise Category? Oldfarm 02:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments on style, layout etc: I made these changes for SS John W. Brown; see. I'll leave you to do the same for SS Henry Bacon.
 * 1) No need to use "thumbnail" style images within information boxes.
 * 2) If you format dates according to Manual of Style (dates and numbers) then they will adapt according to users' preferences.
 * 3) Give metric conversions for measures in US customary units.
 * 4) No need to repeat the ship prefix: USS Foo on first mention, thereafter just Foo.
 * 5) Once you've added something to Category:World War II American ships, there's no need to add it to Category:US ships because the category hierarchy represents the fact that all World War II American ships are American ships

With regard to house flags for shipping companies, Flags of the World has many. See for example. You might not need to scan any of the ones you have. Gdr 05:22, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)


 * Any US-flagged ship, whether merchant or naval uses the same jack. British-flagged merchant ships would use the red ensign. David Newton 18:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a couple more questions. Oldfarm 02:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have added an article under MS Bloemfontein Castle. I sailed as a crew member and all my documents call it the MV Bloemfontein Castle. I recall that all large British motor ships of that era used the MV designation. Should this be changed ? If so, how do I do it ?
 * If I create a category, should it be Motorships, Motor Vessels, Diesel Ships, Oil Ships or what?

"The" before the ship's name

 * Unless merchant ships are fundamentally different from warships, the ship should be referred to as "John W. Brown" not "the John W. Brown". The exception is when an adjective is used, "the first John W. Brown" or "the merchant John W. Brown". Or a noun follows "the John W. Brown commander" or "the John W. Brown hull", although these are more commonly rendered "the commander of John W. Brown". Jinian 20:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been reading about ships for some 40 plus years now. The only time I have seen the rule regarding the use of an article before the ship's name was in a US Navy handbook concerning the proper wording of invitations to launching ceremonies. See: [] Oldfarm 22:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Navy Style Guide 1 specifically states "Do not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose," not "the USS San Jose." Of course, as I mentioned above, merchant ships might be different. Jinian 23:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know if this is just a USN idea or what - I don't have any style guides that address the subject. We don't actually have to follow USN style, even for articles about USN subjects, because we're a global encyclopedia with our own style guide and not a branch of the US govt - for instance, the USN guide has rules regarding "foreign navies", which is sort of a meaningless concept in WP. Also, check out the USN rules for "Arabian Gulf" vs "Persian Gulf", hee hee. Stan 00:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I would certainly not put 'the' before the names of RN ships, and I've adopted the same principle when writing here about German and Austro-Hungarian ships (Viribus Unitis class battleship, for example). -- Arwel 01:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems not to be agreement among the pros - flipping through the Oxford illustrated RN history (written by various specialists ca 1995) in my lap, I see "towing away the Royal Charles" (p. 72), "The Asia, a new and very heavily armed ship" (p. 168), "introduction of the Dreadnought in 1905" (p. 201), "Meanwhile the Emden was pursuing" (p. 300). On the other hand, "Only Tirpitz remained" (p. 372), the WWII section (by Eric Grove) being consistent that way, but then "the Belgrano was sunk" (p. 396). One gets the impression that Oxford's editors were not too concerned about this point of style when assembling the book. :-) Stan 03:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it okay if I just don't like "the" in front of a ship's name? Do we have to have official style guides from all the nations' navies? After all, only rarely am I called "the Jinian". Jinian 17:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I personally don't care much either way, but our options are to define a house rule and allow editors to enforce it on articles at will, or to not define a rule, and leave articles in the style in which they were originally written. I wouldn't want to not define a house rule *and* allow editors to edit to their personal taste, because that makes for silly edit wars. If we have a house rule, it should be WP-wide and not be per-navy, civilian-only, or whatever - consider that it also affects usage in WP articles not primarily on nautical subjects, so everybody will need to be informed of the rule. That's why I asked about style guides - if we go advertising a rule to all editors, we want to forestall debate by saying how it compares with the advice found in the standard style guides. Stan 02:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, using "the" before a proper noun sounds funny but before a common noun sounds natural. Thus, I naturally say "I went to sea in Ohio &mdash; no, not the battleship, the submarine Ohio." --the Epopt 13:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, then, unless anyone objects, let the house rule say "no the". I'll wait a week for objections and then move this to the main page, as well as mention it in the naming conventions article. Jinian 17:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you do the style guide research then? If Fowler or some such says to use "the", and your defense is the USN style guide, you're risking a huge flamefest about attempts to force "Americopedia", etc etc. It's one thing to discuss with the five people in this little corner of WP, and another to get the attention of the thousand 6th-grade English teachers :-) that make up the main body of editors. Hopefully I'm just being overcautious, but bigger debates have erupted over smaller issues, and an hour in the library should give you the shell-fired guns you need to defend against the slings and arrows of disbelieving editors. (I can get to library myself on 10/31, but not before.) Stan 22:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I meant to get to the library and check Fowler tonight, but didn't. The online guides I've found do not address this issue specifically. I'm not in any real hurry, so will either check next week or trust your research on this. Jinian 02:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * to the English teacher: "Mrs Grundy, ships are the tool most anthropomorphized by Anglo-Americans. What other inanimate object is so consistently female?  Accordingly, she is spoken of as if she were a person.  One doesn't use the definite article before a person's name, does one?"


 * Not unless it's "the Fonz" or "the Donald". :-) Stan 15:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did actually get to the library, but the only statement I found on the subject was in somebody's massive tome on English grammar. The learned discussion of "the" went on for some pages, and was quite entertaining. There are three categories of usage; obligatory, disallowed, and optional, not always obvious why one is one category or the other. For instance, compare "I went to see the Great Salt Lake" to "I went to see Great Salt Lake" - the latter makes it sound like one was at a concert by an obscure band. Conversely "I went to Clear Lake" sounds right, while "I went to the Clear Lake" suggests there are several, and that you have a particular one in mind. Anyway, after all that, ships and planes were put in the "typically used" category, with examples of "the Victory" and "the Spirit of St. Louis", along with a note "especially if they are famous". My takeaway is that we have a free hand to decide on style, and that USN guide is sufficient to tip us towards omitting "the" when possible. Stan 04:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a hard and fast rule here, the inclusion of the definite article depends on the context of the sentence you are writing. As most ships are named after other things, it is necessary to precede the name with a 'The' in order to make the reference clear. However, you can also make the reference clear by using a Ship prefix. Once you have established the context, you can (optionally) drop the definite article for further references, but would use it again if you had spent a paragraph or two talking about something else. When a ship is named after a person or place you will need the definite article, or another disambiguating phrase, more frequently.
 * So in the case of HMS Hood, I would open the article with 'HMS Hood was..' later on I might discuss a naval battle as 'Hood sighted the Bismark coming over the horizon and opened fire. Bismark was quick to respond...'. As I haven't discussed the Bismark before it needs the definite article, but after that I can drop it.
 * Now lets say I go over to the Reference Desk and drop in the question.
 * What was the length of Hood?
 * Without a context, the question doesn't make sense. If I ask 'What was the length of the Hood?', there is a chance someone will understand. With 'What was the length of HMS Hood?' I'm nearly in the clear, but since several naval vessels bore that name, I really need further qualification 'What was the length of the WWII battlecruiser HMS Hood'.
 * For a ship such as The Mary Rose, I will nearly always need the 'The'. Even after referring to the ship several times and staying in a naval context, if I write 'Mary Rose sailed from Southampton to Calais' you can't help but think about a woman making a journey. Similarly, referring to USS Ohio is not a problem, but later writing 'Ohio was torpedoed' will always be confusing whilst 'The Ohio was torpedoed' isn't.
 * Where a name has become synonymous with a ship, and that ship alone, you can get away with dropping the definite article more often, even on its first use. Back at the Reference Desk I could reasonably ask
 * What was the length of Titanic?
 * But I couldn't complain if I got the reply '3 hours 14 minutes'. Even so, I would suggest the Titanic article should go back to using 'The Titanic...' more often.
 * I suspect the U.S. Navy Style Guide has been taken out of context, making it appear too prescriptive. When it says "Do not use 'the' in front of a ship's name", it is in relation to using the USS ship prefix and to the initial mention of a ship. Note that in almost the next paragraph that manual uses a 'the' to clarify the colloquial name of a ship, "USS LaSalle (AGF 3), the 'Great White Ghost,' sailed into San Diego". -- Solipsist 10:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Could it be somehow different in American English than in regular English (just an idea...) ?
 * At least in French, the names of the ships are always preceeded by "Le" or "La", even though the article is not part of the name itself (for instance, Le Redoutable class submarine is wierd... I'd feel more at ease with "Redoutable class"). Thus, in English, I tend to translate this by, for instance, starting an article with "The Redoutable was bla bla bla"; I don't know how it sounds for an English ear... Rama 13:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * First references should always use the prefix (SS George Washington, HMS Hood, HMS Bismarck).
 * Second references to the ship has the name distinquished either with italics or capitals. So, "Ohio was torpedoed" or "Mary Rose sailed" or (in the case of the USN) "LASALLE entered San Diego harbor". Reading an article about USS Ohio or any naval article, and reading "Ohio was torpedoed" shouldn't cause any confusion.

If we take a look at the dictionary (www.dictionary.com) definition for "the":


 * 1) Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore.
 * 2) Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these days.
 * 3) Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon.
 * 4) Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass: the weather; a wind from the south.
 * 5) Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand.
 * 6) Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; the stage.
 * 7) Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic.
 * 8) Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties.
 * 9) Used before a singular noun indicating that the noun is generic: The wolf is an endangered species.
 * 10) Used before an adjective extending it to signify a class and giving it the function of a noun: the rich; the dead; the homeless.
 * 11) Used before an absolute adjective: the best we can offer.
 * 12) Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract: the weaving of rugs.
 * 13) Used before a noun with the force of per: cherries at $1.50 the box.
 * 1) Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract: the weaving of rugs.
 * 2) Used before a noun with the force of per: cherries at $1.50 the box.

-- AllyUnion (talk) 07:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Whilst checking a range of internet references to compare the frequency of 'Mary Rose' vs 'The Mary Rose', I've noticed a trend that suggests the tendancy to drop the 'the' increases with naval history web sites. The majority, including the BBC and the official www.maryrose.org site prefer 'The Mary Rose'. On the other hand, the Royal Navy site initially tries to stick to 'Mary Rose' but soon reverts to using 'The Mary Rose'. The website for Portsmouth historic dockyard manages to consistently refer to 'Mary Rose' and includes a matching usage from the ship's log. Unfortunately they get so carried away they also say "Visit Mary Rose shop for a superb...", but in that sentence 'Mary Rose' is an adjective for the shop and so its totally wrong drop the 'the'.
 * If the trend is for more technical or more military sources to loose the definite article, it would explain why some editors here believe it is correct. However, Wikipedia is addressing a more general audience, so I think would be more appropriate to include the 'the' more often, and certainly wrong to remove it systematically. -- Solipsist 08:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Italian Navy

 * Is there a prefix for Italian Navy ships? E.g. INS Whatever?
 * &mdash;wwoods 20:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've seen "RN" used for ships of the Kingdom of Italy, e.g. RN Dante Alighieri, Italy's first dreadnought. Presumably RN stands for something like "Regia Nautica"?. -- Arwel 21:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no standard prefix for ships of the Italian navies. Some authors do use "RN" for ships of the Regia Marina and "MM" for ships of the Marina Militare, but I see no evidence that the Italian navies themselves do so (in particular, the Marina Militare has a rather nice index of current ships at and an almanac of historical ships at  with no ship prefix in sight). So following Naming conventions (ships) we should name articles like Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi. Gdr 22:28, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

DANFS
I wrote some notes on DANFS conversions at WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions. Please comment. Gdr 14:46, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)


 * I like it. Nice job. Can you include some suggestions for other sources though? I find myself Googling and have no idea as to the veracity of the sources I discover. Jinian 11:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ship class footers
These seem to get quite big when ships are sold from one navy to another. I found that I had made Template:Colossus class aircraft carrier today and I'm not sure I like it. But I suppose it's still smaller than Template:Fletcher class destroyer. But Template:Flower class corvette is going to be huge (267 ships, ten navies). Comments? Gdr 22:20, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Why do multiple entries, when the same ship changes navies? You can leave the history to the page or pages about the ship. In some cases the second navy gives the ship a new class as well as a new name, e.g. the Balao-class USS Hawkbill became the Walrus-class HNLMS Zeeleeuw. If some ships have different pages for both careers, maybe put links at the bottom of the footer to the corresponding classes in the other navies? Or just put the alternate links together: "... | Collosus (FS Arromanches) | ..."
 * &mdash;wwoods 00:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A good question. I was following what appeared to be the standard format for these boxes, for example Template:County class cruiser where Shropshire appears twice or Template:Dido class cruiser where several ships are repeated. See WikiProject Ships/Footers for other examples. Looking at the histories it seems to be User:David Newton and User:SoLando who are responsible for the design. If we're going to change this format then we should do so consistently and after some thought. Gdr 01:06, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * I've tried not to reproduce ships unnecessarily. Where there are vessels that have served in different navies, I only tend to list them only if new. For example, the OHP class frigates have entries for the USN and the Spanish ships [also Australian and Taiwanese, but not Turkish, Egyptian, or Polish &mdash; Gdr]. There is a limit to what can be done. However, there is an argument for being complete. I'm just glad that there are many ship classes it doesn't arise for!! David Newton 22:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A reason for listing each ship once for each navy it served in is that otherwise it seems very likely that someone will be offended: "My father served on a Colossus-class carrier in the Argentine Navy and I don't see it here." (I don't know whether this is a good enough reason to fully populate these boxes.) Gdr 23:36, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

I made some proposals at WikiProject Ships/Footer proposals. Please take a look and comment. Gdr 18:47, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)


 * I illustrated some of the proposals using the Flower-class corvettes (only the first 215, not the revised ones). I think the lesson is that a ship class box is inappropriate for such large ship classes and that a simple link to an overview article containing a list is fine. As for smaller classes, I'm still not sure. Gdr 00:25, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Existence and naming of disambiguation pages
(I split the discussion that started below into several parts because there are several issues here &mdash; Gdr 14:44, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC))

The whole situation is a mess and needs cleaning up. I see we have three pages that list ships of this name: USS Nautilus, Ships named Nautilus and Nautilus (submarine). We should work out a sensible solution before this goes too far. Gdr 22:52, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Ditto. There are just not very many situations where one is interested in the aggregate of vessels that happen to have the same name. I'm all for experiments, but unilateral repudiation of the standard used for what is now hundreds of ship articles is just not a winning strategy. Stan 01:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not as you characterise it a wholesale repudiation of anything. The article Ships named Nautilus is not intended to replace any other article. It includes ships not ever called USS Nautilus, and ships whose article title does not have Nautilus in it... Pedant 08:14, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)


 * I haven't touched Ships named Nautilus because I don't want to get into an edit war, but I did edit all the other Nautilus articles to put them into the currently accepted format for ship articles, and I redirected Nautilus (submarine) to Ships named Nautilus, moved several of the articles to their preferred name according to, and expanded Nautilus (1800). I cut the duplicated material about the origin of the name Nautilus and "see also" list from each ship's article, replacing it with a link to the ovierview article. It's not a good idea to have text duplicated like this between lots of articles because it makes it hard to keep up to date. If you feel that each ship article needs boilerplate, then make a template.


 * I don't object to having pages disambiguating between all the ships with a name (regardless of nationality or navy), at least for certain famous and notable names like Nautilus. Gdr 14:44, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

I'm only going to address one of these things at a time.

...First (moved to below)

...Second, what naming convention specifically are you using, when you name articles? People keep referring to naming conventions, but nothing I read in Naming conventions (ships) says that ships should all be called 'USS'.

...Third (moved to below)

...Fourth, show me the convention where it says all disambiguation articles are to start with USS.

...Fifth, what is the convention that says ships should be referred by the incorrect prefix, in other words, what is the justification for calling a ship USS Something when the ship didn't exist at any point in time after the prefix 'USS' started being used. (covered at below)

I'm not moving on to the next section until we settle what's in this section, since I think that once this is discussed here a lot of the other stuff will be moot. Pedant 06:21, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * There is no convention that all disambiguation articles should start with "USS". This is a misunderstanding on your part (and possibly on the part of some other people). Perhaps this misunderstanding is at the heart of your disagreement with the project?


 * This is my understanding of the current disambiguation convention and why it is like it is: (1) Many ship names are repeated, hence the need for disambiguation pages. (2) Ship names are generally repeated within a navy and not between navies. So all the Sheffields are in the Royal Navy, all the Samuel B. Roberts are in the United States Navy, all the Karel Doormans are in the Royal Netherlands Navy and so on. (3) Within a navy, some things are passed between namesakes: documents, battle honours, flags, etc. (4) So for most names, it is most appropriate to disambiguate that name in the context of a navy, that is it make sense to disambiguate at USS Samuel B. Roberts and not at "Ships named Samuel B. Roberts" (similarly, it make sense to disambiguate at HMS Sheffield and HNLMS Karel Doorman). (5) This also usefully catches the very common case where someone forgot to disambiguate and just wrote USS Samuel B. Roberts.


 * However, for famous ship names which are shared between navies, or which are used by notable civilian ships, then I completely agree that a disabiguation page is appropriate. Certainly Nautilus and Enterprise fall into this group, and many other famous names, e.g. Alabama, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, etc etc.


 * We should work out the best way to do this. I think it would be best to follow the ordinary Wikipedia disambiguation rules, so that the Enterprises would be disambiguated at Enterprise and the Nautiluses at Nautilus (disambiguation). Another possibility would be to have a separate disambiguation page named perhaps Enterprise (ship). Gdr 11:41, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Contents of ship name pages
(I refactored the section above to separate this issue. Gdr 11:41, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC))

My personal preference is for lists of ships to be short indexes, like USS Nautilus, not one-paragraph biographies, like Ships named Nautilus. Gdr 22:52, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)


 * and it is not about ships actually, its about the naval history of the name Nautilus. Yet someone redirected it to a page with LESS ships in it, without moving the content anywhere.  Deleting content?  Is that ok in anybody's book?  Not in mine. That article was written by the curator of the Naval Museum in Groton and the Officer-in-charge of the Historic Ship Nautilus, I think that those two would be a great addition to the team, and I'm trying to recruit them.  Blanking the article doesn't help that goal at all. Pedant 08:14, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

I do feel that the current format of Ships named Nautilus is not the way to go. It is a sequence of one-paragraph biographies that duplicates material on the individual ship articles. As far as I can see, there is nothing on this page that doesn't appear in the individual articles. This kind of duplication might be justifiable if it told a coherent story, in the way that similar sequences of short biographies manage to do in some ship class articles. However, it doesn't add up to a coherent story in the case of Nautilus: the only thing the ships share is their name. So I think this article should just be a disambiguation page in the style of USS Nautilus. Gdr 14:44, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)


 * ...First, Ships named Nautilus is not a disambiguation page, it wasn't written to be a disambiguation page and isn't intended to replace any other disambiguation page. It's about the Naval history of the name Nautilus.


 * ...Third, "Ships named Nautilus is not the way to go. It is a sequence of one-paragraph biographies that  duplicates material on the individual ship articles" several of those articles were copied from Ships named Nautilus, and as for the format, take a look at the original article as I left it.  Pedant 06:21, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

You claim that Ships named Nautilus is about the "naval history of the name Nautilus", but I just don't see it. There's nothing there about how the ships got their names, who named them, whether they were named after the mollusc or the Verne submarine or the ancient Greek sailor. It's just a list of facts about ships that happen to share a name. So in what way is the page more than a disambiguation page? What added value does the reader get over having the individual articles? We don't do this with other pages that list several ships, why does Nautilus deserve this special treatment?

Here's my proposal: following normal Wikipedia disambiguation policy (Disambiguation), ships named Nautilus should be listed on Nautilus (disambiguation). Unless there's a good reason for keeping it, ships named Nautilus can redirect to Nautilus (disambiguation) with no loss of informaton. Gdr 20:39, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Categorize by name?
A few categories have sprung up "by name". If you'd like to input on this, see Categories_for_deletion to comment.

I've already made my thoughts on this clear, both on this discussion and previous attempts. It's "generally a bad idea" since we already have so many other ways to approach this. Jinian 20:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Separate issue: The categories Category:Ships by name, Category:Ships named Nautilus, Category:Ships named Enterprise and Category:Ships named Valiant are only intended for ships whose names have such a long history, have so many ships with the same name, and have ships of that name in multiple countries, and in military and civilian service. In these cases, index pages such as USS Nautilus are not appropriate for all the ships named Nautilus, as there were numerous Nautilus-named vessels that were not USS Nautilus. What harm do these categories do to the existing scheme of categorization? None. Please see the full discussion of why and in what way these categories enhance wikipedia on Categories for deletion and if you think they should be deleted, vote to delete them. Note that I am not proposing to put ALL ships in this kind of category, only ship names that have been used so often that there is a likelihood of someone having difficulty finding them just using the existing scheme. This is not a replacement for the existing scheme.

From WikiProject Ships: "Within "ships", multiple categories for individuals is both useful and desirable"

From talk:WikiProject Ships: '''" how to categorize ships and other vessels. By nationality? By type? By function? By period? Category:Ships shows that there isn't yet consistency in this area. Gdr 15:29, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)


 * Why, all of them, of course!"''' <--- that was you, Stan.

Look over the categories I've added and see if they are 1)useful; and 2)harmful; -- and vote accordingly. thanksPedant 08:14, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)


 * Touche! There is however a developing consensus among categorizers to restrain themselves on picking common attributes, so we don't have Category:Ships commanded by Nelson, Category:Inns where Washington slept, Category:Ships with three first officers in the first three years, etc. :-) Shared names are borderline, because the sharing of name is due to decisions so obscure that they are nearly random (see recent discussion on WWII subs' "fish names"). A few such categories, for heavily-reused names, doesn't seem particularly harmful, but once you've allowed a few, how do you tell someone not to create the useless Category:Ships named Wilmington? Stan 00:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course as a list rather than a category there's nothing wrong with List of ships commanded by Nelson (or a section in the Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson article). Gdr 09:43, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second the request for people who have an informed (or, hey, slightly-more-informed-than-the-average-person-on-the-street) opinion on the matter to weigh in at Categories for deletion. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 00:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently this was already resolved, as I don't see it on CfD.Pedant 06:25, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it has not been resolved. As mentioned on the talk page of the "Ships by name" category, see Categories_for_deletion/Ships_by_name: "No consensus was released." Jinian 20:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "No consensus was reached". The discussion is somewhat confused, but I count about half for and about half against, depending on what I count, which is problematic. We should probably develop a policy of one listing per issue so as to keep the votes in one place. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 00:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flags
I'm a bit puzzled why some navies get their ensigns and some their jacks for the flag icon. It makes quite a bit more sense to use the ensigns, and most are&#8212;except for the U.S. This is particularly odd because the U.S. ensign is probably the most recognizable ensign in the world, while only sailors and ship buffs would ever recognize the U.S. jack. (Show the jack to 100 people in London or Berlin, or even Oklahoma City, and how many would be able to ID it?) Why the inconsistencey, particularly when someone had to go out of his way to do it? &#8212;Tkinias 08:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The flags were originally added by User:The Epopt back in 2003. There was no discussion as to what principles to adopt. It's not too late to think about this issue now. So what do you propose? Gdr 12:47, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)


 * Back when I was the only one doing this, I chose to use jacks because they are specific symbols; e.g., the various colours of the ensigns of the Royal Navy. Where a given Navy didn't have a jack -- or I had trouble finding a good image of the jack -- I used the ensign. As others joined me in working on ships, they added whatever they felt was appropriate. I do not think we should replace any naval jacks with national ensigns. The jack is the symbol of the Navy; the ensign is the symbol of the entire nation. Precision is valuable. The popularity argument doesn't float for me -- an encyclopedia's job is to be right, perhaps even educational -- not made inaccurate to avoid surprising the ignorant. If anything, we should replace the fifty-star USN jack with the one currently flying on the warships of the US Navy. --the Epopt 15:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm not sure I follow. You say "Precision is valuable. The popularity argument doesn't float for me -- an encyclopedia's job is to be right, perhaps even educational -- not made inaccurate to avoid surprising the ignorant."  I'm suggesting that we be precise and consistent, and use either jacks or ensigns for all navies.  Now, we have, as a sampling:
 * Argentina: jack
 * Brazil: jack
 * UK: ensign
 * US: jack
 * India: ensign
 * Poland: ensign
 * Mexico: jack
 * I think that the ensign is the appropriate choice for all navies, since it is the ensign which is flown when underway, but if jacks are used, they should be used consistently -- thus, the Union Jack for UK, not the RN and other ensigns. &#8212;Tkinias 00:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm? How many stars are on the current jack, and what states have been omitted (or anticipated)?
 * &mdash;wwoods 04:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The current USN jack is the "Don't tread on me" jack. Authorized in May 2002, it's been flying for years now. Jinian 12:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would prefer the jack flown by the ship itself, the most recent jack the subject ship flew for ships which are no longer in existence. I think though, that there should be some explanation as to what the jack is, like: "This ship is in active US Naval service, and flies the above flag on its jackstaff.  The 'don't tread on me jack' originated... bla bla and has been flown on USN ships since May. ??, 2002, by order of... "  etc. specifying the jack the ship actually uses or used most recently.Pedant 06:35, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * Which jack to use would seem to depend on why we have the jacks in the table in the first place. If it's to place the ship in the proper historical context, then all the jacks the ship ever flew might go there. If it's to identify the navy(ies) with which the ship served, the current jack of each navy might do. The latter seems to be the current practice. I don't have a preference. For consistency, I would like to see/do the research on which navy flew which jack for which dates before we decide to change to the former option.


 * (As a datapoint, while the new/old jack has been authorized since 31 May 2002, each ship received its issue of the actual jacks at different times and therefore no one date exists for the changeover. Some ships shifted colors on 11 September 2002, others did upon receipt of their issue.)


 * Whatever we decide, I'd prefer that Pedant's suggested text be on the page of the image or a page like First Navy Jack, rather than on each ship's page, for ease of updating. After all, one day the War on Terrorism may end. When that happens it would be nice to update one page rather than 289. Jinian 21:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Use a template for any active ships. For historical ships, use the one at the time...which will be the starred jack for almost all ships that are not currently in commission. -Joseph (Talk) 22:39, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


 * Templates! Duh! Of course, that's the way. However, I don't think it's as simply as all that (star field for decommissioned and snake for active) and would like to see a rule set and some agreed upon way of doing this for all the navies - not only USN.
 * If we're even going to do this, which I'm neutral on. Jinian 01:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why everyone is discussing the U.S. naval jack, when what the pages should display is the ensign, as with the British ships. It is the ensign which is flown from ships underway, and internationally it is the ensign which is associated strongly with the navy in particular. Unless caught in port, no ship fought under her jack; she fought under her ensign.

In the U.K., the jack is the national flag, not the ensign, which is purely naval. Just picking a few countries out more-or-less at random: China, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Israel, India, and Pakistan have distinctive naval ensigns which differ from the national flag (I think they all use the national flag for the jack), while France is like the U.S. in using the national flag for the ensign. Greece also falls in the latter category, because the national flag was changed after the abolition of the monarchy, where the old naval ensign became the new national flag. In general, though, it is the ensign which is the distinctive symbol of the fleet, not the jack.

Or am I the only one who cares about consistency? &#8212;Tkinias 14:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, we all care about consistency, it's just that no-one has noticed this problem before, probably because most editors work primarily on ships of one navy. Now you've brought the problem to everyone's attention, we can sort out a solution. I suspect that people chose the USN jack and the RN ensign because they are distinct from the country's national flag. What you need to do is to propose a solution, propose wording to put on WikiProject Ships/Ensigns, get people here to agree on (or modify) your solution, and then when you've achieved consensus, implement it. Good luck! Gdr 20:07, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

(Tkinias moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns but I moved it back again to keep discussion in one place and because people are more likely to have this page watched and so more likely to see discussion here. Gdr 23:01, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC))

Ensign/jack rationalization
OK, my proposal, simply put, is to use either ensigns or jacks. I'll compile, when I get a chance, a list of navies and whether the ensign, jack, or both differs from the national flag. Perhaps at that point a vote is in order on whether, when all the (important?) navies are taken together, the purpose is better served by ensigns or jacks. &#8212;Tkinias 21:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You could do worse than to correct and fill out the table at WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Gdr 23:16, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)


 * Sorry about move... I misread your above comment to mean that I should discuss it under /Ensigns (*rubbing eyes*).  I was reluctant just to go in and edit the table because there seemed to be strong feelings regarding the U.S. jack in some quarters.  I didn't notice you'd separated them already.  Will proceed as directed... &#8212;Tkinias 23:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there consensus BTW that flags should be ? I'm hazy on copyright for taking flags from Flags of the World... &#8212;Tkinias 23:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If you tag them and indicate the source, then if the theory that national flags are in the public domain turns out to be wrong then at least they can be found and removed. Gdr 00:20, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)


 * OK. &#8212;Tkinias 23:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup of ensign and jack images (including matching their colours to each other and the national flags), although there remains much to do. I'm going to hit the UK ensigns next to get their colours right (we've got a mishmash of shades now). The list is starting to take shape, though. (Thanks Gdr for your work, too...)

I'd like to suggest building templates for the flag images. This way we can tweak the ensigns/jacks/whatever ultimately gets used, or change file names, or whatever, without having to redo pages. One overhaul to replace hard-coded image links with templates and then it never needs to get looked at again. I'd like to see, therefore, a series like Template:Shipflag_au_pre1967... &#8212;Tkinias 23:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When it comes to jacks and ensigns, I would say that one is suitable in some circumstances, and another in others. For example, for Commonwealth nations in general, it is probably the ensign that is suitable, since it tends to be distinct for the navy in question. In the British case, for example, the RN, RFA and RMAS are distinct organisations, and their ensigns are distinct. The British Merchant Navy has another distinct ensign again. On the other hand, where the navy in question uses the national flag as its ensign, it would probably be better to use the jack as a distinct marker for the navy. The US is an example of that. David Newton 16:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old pages
There are a bunch of ship articles on Special:Ancientpages, it would be great if some of these could be categorized to get them off the list. - SimonP 06:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Trenton class amphibious transport dock
 * USS Duluth (LPD-6)
 * USS Massachusetts (BB-54)
 * USS Montana (BB-51)
 * USS Reuben James (DE-153)
 * USS Youngstown (CL-94)
 * USS Wilmington (CL-111)
 * USS Dolphin (cutter)
 * USS Dolphin (brig)
 * USS Bourbon
 * USS Captor (PYc-40)
 * USS Duluth (LPD-6)
 * USS Dallas (CA-150)


 * Why is it harmful for these pages to be on the list? Gdr 13:11, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)


 * I think I've been doing this too long, if a page I created is now considered an "ancient page". :-) Being aged is not itself a bad thing (perhaps the article is perfect!), but given that standards and practices have evolved since these were last touched, it's certainly a sign that it's time for a review. Stan 17:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stan on this, there may be nothing at all wrong with having the page listed, it could be perfect... maybe take a peek and see.Pedant 06:37, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * ...and add a space somewhere innocuous to take it off the list? ;) &#8212;Tkinias 21:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Backdating ship prefixes
It's common practice on Wikipedia to backdate the use of the ship prefixes "HMS" and "USS" to refer to ships that were not called by that prefix by their contemporaries. User:Pedant interprets this as introducing errors of fact into articles.

It is my opinion that this backdating (1) is harmless; (2) makes it easy to figure out how to title an article without having to do extensive research in primary sources; (3) matches what many other reference works do; (4) avoids naming disputes over what exactly contemporaries called the ship; (5) makes it possible to title articles where we simply don't know how the ship was called at the time; (6) doesn't preclude editors from adding detail as to how the ship was actually named, pehaps along the lines of "HMS Foo (referred to in a 1767 letter from her captain as "His Britannic Majesty's Armed Sloop-of-War Foo) ..."

However, I think it is worth discussing this issue so that we can get consensus that the current practice is a good one, or consensus that it should be changed. Gdr 13:11, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)


 * As a data point I noticed just last night, The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea uses "H.M.S. Mary Rose" for what we call Mary Rose. Bonhomme Richard does not have a "U.S.S." - but it only mentions the JPJ boat, so from their point of view there was no ambiguity to address. As another data point, explicitly says "Continental frigate Boston" and other earlies, which would fit nicely into our system. I remember seeing some author use "USS" retroactively into Continental period, which is why I started doing it, but can't find the book now, so might have been hallucination. Stan 15:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Another data point that I ran across this morning is Capture of CSS Florida by USS Wachusett, 7 October 1864. The commander uses "U.S.S. Wachusett" over 40 years before the 1909 date that the Navy Style Guide suggests as the proper start date. With more digging, it's obvious the Naval Historical Center routinely uses the "USS" prefix in their photo collection. See 1, 2 and 3 for examples.


 * The Continental period for USS is more troublesome. The Naval Historical Center's website is inconsistent and uses "United States Ship" in its page for Reprisal. If we do go with "Continental frigate...", we'll also have to decide what to do with the ships (if any?) that survived the revolution and were immediately taken into the new US Navy. I don't have strong feelings on either side of the Continental Navy issue.


 * I concur that the backdating for USS and HMS prefixes is generally useful and harmless. Jinian 16:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with using USS to refer to ships prior to 1909, remember that not all users of the encyclopedia would think to add USS to the name when looking it up. I'm dead certain that one of the main guidelines of the wikipedia is factual accuracy. This should include ship's names. The fact that Commander Collins and others used abbreviations of the phrase United States Ship in reports does not mean they were named in that manner, and merely shows where the custom of adding that prefix arose, as an abbreviation, and then later, using the prefix became an official part of ship's names. We should only use that prefix as part of the name if it actually was part of the ship's name. Just because that creates difficulty does not mean we shouldn't do it. If you want to do something that's easy, just don't write encyclopedias. The naming conventions clearly state:

Some authors use invented prefixes for consistency with "USS", "HMS" etc. It's not a mistake to do that, but at Wikipedia we choose not to.

Articles about ships that do not have standard prefixes should be titled as (Nationality) (type) (Name); for example, Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov

and I think we should either follow the convention or change it, but not have a convention that is ignored. And not have inaccurate articles.Pedant 07:04, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * is useful background reading, and offers a little more insight. I'll have some point-by-point comments later. Incidentally, it seems clear that United States Ship should be its own article instead of a redir; it will be a place to record the facts that we discover, and a handy reference when making decisions. Stan 01:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The relevant part of the link Stan cited above seems to be:

Into the early years of the 20th century there was no fixed form for Navy ship prefixes. Ships were rather haphazardly identified, in correspondence or documents, by their naval type (U.S. Frigate ____), their rig (United States Barque ____), or their function (United States Flag-Ship ______). They might also identify themselves as "the Frigate _____," or, simply, "Ship ______." The term "United States Ship," abbreviated "USS," is seen as early as the late 1790s; it was in frequent, but far from exclusive, use by the last half of the 19th century.

In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive order that established the present usage: In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters. --Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907.

Today's Navy Regulations define the classification and status of naval ships and craft: 1. The Chief of Naval Operations shall be responsible for ... the assignment of classification for administrative pur- poses to water-borne craft and the designation of status for each ship and service craft. ....       2. Commissioned vessels and craft shall be called "United States Ship" or "U.S.S." 3. Civilian manned ships, of the Military Sealift Command or other commands, designated "active status, in service" shall be called "United States Naval Ship" or "U.S.N.S." 4. Ships and service craft designated "active status, in service," except those described by paragraph 3 of this article, shall be referred to by name, when assigned, classification, and hull number (e.g., "HIGH POINT PCH-1" or "YOGN-8"). -- United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406.


 * I agree that United States Ship merits its own article, this discussion is sufficient to convince me of that. Pedant 15:52, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * Back-use of ship prefixes seems to be a well-established tradition - "HMS", without the periods, is quite commonly used by professional naval historians for vessels going back into the Middle Ages, so I think the principle has been set that it's not necessarily a factual error to use a known-valid ship prefix for ships prior to the time when it was officially standardized. One way to think of it is as a translation into modern terminology; for instance, we write about ancient Romans using BC/AD dates, not "AUC" which is how they dated things. It makes things easier all around, but classical scholars don't do it out of laziness; they do it because it makes it easier for readers to understand - not just for general readers, but for each other. WP does this a lot; for instance, it doesn't say "Bill Clinton" on the birth certificate, so is arguably incorrect (it's not the official name, right?) but forget trying to move the article to "William Jefferson Clinton".


 * Now that you mention it, it's going to be difficult to forget... Pedant 16:10, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * Now the case of USS is a little trickier because we have one source, the US Navy style guide, that tells Navy people not to use it pre-1909 (which is odd, because the Roosevelt order dates from 1907). I would be good to know why it says that; for instance, it might have no deeper reason than to avoid confusing older ships with newer ones. (It might also be a mistake.) One strike against the USN guide is that it's intended as a style guide for Navy writers - for instance, it recommends "September 11 terrorist attacks", which by an amazing coincidence just happens to be in line with the current administration's policies calling it part of a "War on Terror", while WP's consensus is to omit the "terrorist" part as POV. Similarly, we have no compunctions about altering old DANFS articles to leave out the ridiculous "communist scourge" stuff, even though it's an official publication of the Navy. So we have a situation where the Navy is deprecating a usage that is common among both professional historians and general readers (randoms typing in content always glue on the USS, expecting to disambiguate later); which authority should we follow? If we follow the Navy's rule, and say things like "United States ship Maine", it's going to look like we're not abbreviating to "USS" out of perversity. That's one of the things that makes me wonder about the style guide; the consequence of following their rule is chaos in a large reference work, as if they hadn't thought through the consequences of the recommendation. Stan 17:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a paragraph about backdating ship prefixes at Naming conventions (ships), including a brief justification. Please check and comment. In particular, it would be nice if User:Pedant could comment. Gdr 20:01, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)


 * I still note that this page continues to have conflicting information, and feel that this is a problem. If we are going to instruct editors that:
 * "Some authors use invented prefixes for consistency with "USS", "HMS" etc. It's not a mistake to do that, but at Wikipedia we choose not to. "
 * then I think we should not also include:
 * "For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the name of the article: USS Monitor (compare monitor)"
 * as that seems to me to be conflicting information. I recommend that we get a consensus on just exactly what the policy is, and then go rewrite the above information, so that it reflects the 'One True Policy', policy pages should be thoroughly unambiguous, in my opinion. Pedant 15:48, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care what the policy is, regardless of the "adding false information issue", if it's the policy to name an article USS Something-that-never-was-a-USS-ship that would be fine because a note could be made in the article for those ships to the effect that "this ship existed prior to the adoption of the U.S.S. prefix, but this article is named in this manner by convention" or something, this could even be a template, but whatever the policy is, it shouldn't be necessary to confer with the Wikiproject:Ships members to inquire as to whether the custom differs from the policy, before writing an article, or correcting one etc... if it is necessary the policy should read: "We don't have an established policy, so please confer with all the other ship writers before you make a dreadful misstep that uses up a whole lot of everyone's time" or similar statement. I mostly think people should be able to come to wikipedia, consult the policy page, read a policy that is understandable and rational and doesn't have internal inconsistencies -- and then go ahead and follow the policy without fear of reprisals.  I tried to follow the policy, I don't mind doing an unlimited amount of work to bring articles in line with the policy, as long as there is one policy that has been agreed on and that we don't have arcane, alternate 'customs' that conflict with the stated policy. I think most editors would be more comfortable with a written policy than going through this long discussion after trying to follow what the policy says. This experience has definitely 'turned me off' of my desire to add anything to the ship constellation.  I'd hate to think it would do so to another editor at a later date, so I really hope we can clear this up, and be done. Pedant 15:48, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * There's no inconsistency here. "USS" is not an invented prefix, so it doesn't fall under the rubric of at Wikipedia we choose not to [use invented prefixes]. But I can see how you might have misread it to think that it does. So perhaps you can propose alternative wording that would be clearer to you? Gdr 19:22, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

It would also be nice if we could work out guidelines as to how far to backdate the common prefixes, so that the naming convention can be specific. Can "USS" be backdated to the ships of the Continental Navy? How far back can we use "HMS": the navy of Charles I? Elizabeth I? Henry VIII? before that? Gdr 20:01, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)


 * I agree. it would be best if we could work out guidelines for all of these related issues. Pedant

Naming non-military vessels
Naming conventions (ships) does a good job of naming military vessels and ships with a prefix. But I don't think it works for non-military ships that lack a prefix. Current practice is to use ordinary Wikipedia naming conventions for ships, thus Cutty Sark, Mayflower (ship), Santa Maria (ship) (not "English ship Mayflower", "Spanish carrack Santa Maria" etc). Several questions need answering and documenting: Gdr 13:57, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it OK to have two naming conventions, one for military ships and one for non-military?
 * 2) Is it OK to have a disambiguation convention that differs from the usual Wikipedia one?
 * 3) If it's not OK, who's going to do the work of moving German battleship Bismarck to Bismarck (ship) etc and fixing all the links?
 * 4) How do we disambiguate tricky cases like Nautilus (1800)? (It can't be "Nautilus (submarine)" since that's ambiguous.)


 * Deja vu - I remember having this discussion once before, in connection with Mayflower but can't seem to find a record of it. Anyway, for civilian vessels I'm content to fall back to WP defaults, because " " is often ill-defined (is Cutty Sark Scottish, British or Portuguese, and do we have to use a different type name every time she is re-rigged?). Different nomenclature rules for civilian and naval both correspond to the real world, plus it's a quick context-setter when an article comes up. Nautilus disambiguation is easy - use Nautilus (1800 submarine). When things get messy, just keep making the disambiguator longer. :-) Stan 16:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of Stan's paragraph above.  and: Yes it's ok to have two conventions if we stick to them. Yes it's ok to have a different convention on disambiguation, provided that 1)it doesn't conflict with the higher order convention but is an extension of it that logically follows the pattern established by the wikipedia convention. and 2) we stick to the convention we establish. As far as "who does the work?", it's a lot easier to get people to fix things if the convention is plainly stated, then the answer is, we fix it, all the editors on wikipedia.  If someone can generate a list of problems, I'd be happy to fix a bunch of them.  (if there's a convention and I am not going to keep being attacked for wanting to follow it)Pedant 07:15, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement here, so I updated Naming conventions (ships) to specify that ordinary Wikipedia naming conventions apply to civilian ships. Gdr 12:38, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


 * Why is it again that warships do not follow "ordinary Wikipedia naming conventions"? &#8212;Tkinias 23:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Consistency and predictability. Gdr 19:13, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

table markup arcana
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px" . . . !align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|General Characteristics !align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"| . ..
 * [copied from the subpage's talk-page]
 * In the standard infobox,
 * align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:IIH.png|300px|INSERT CAPTION HERE]] Insert caption here


 * the is unnecessary, because the initial < ! > makes them captions, which are automatically centered. But what---if anything---does the < no-repeat scroll top left; > do? I've tried taking it out, without apparent effect (in my browser).


 * Why is the ensign-placeholder sized at 44 pixels, when the header strip is only 30?
 * &mdash;wwoods 17:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Susan Constant Godspeed, and Discovery at Jamestown
I have been working on the article Jamestown, Virginia. I was considering starting ship-stub articles on the Susan Constant Godspeed, and Discovery, the replicas of which are very popular attractions currently at Jamestown. What is the correct way we can link to create articles for the three sailing ships? One of them, Discovery, currently link to a much newer vessel of the same name. Could anyone else here help with these articles? Thanks,. Vaoverland 20:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's my suggestion:


 * 1) Do all the disambiguation on the Discovery page (you may want to break out a sublist for ships; cf. Nautilus (disambiguation) and Akagi) &mdash; done
 * 2) Make Discovery (ship) a redirect to Discovery &mdash; done
 * 3) Name the article about the Jamestown Discovery at Discovery (1602 ship) (1602 being a terminus a quo since I think her launch date is not known ). &mdash; I put a stub there for you; I look forward to your article.
 * 4) Fix redirects. &mdash; done
 * Gdr 00:17, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

FOIA Request
Well, I'm giving the UK's new FOIA a test run. It's extremely difficult to get hold of reliable information about exact dates of when ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary changed status. There is, so far as I am aware, no British publically accessible equivalent of the Naval Vessel Register, and there is certainly no UK equivalent of DANFS. So, a few minutes ago I sent the following FOIA request to the Ministry of Defence.

"For all Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships currently in commission I would like the following information:


 * 1) The date when the ship was ordered
 * 2) The date when the ship was laid down
 * 3) The date when the ship was launched
 * 4) The date when the ship was commissioned into RFA service
 * 5) For vessels that were not newly built for RFA service, the date when they were purchased for RFA service
 * 6) For vessels that were not newly built for RFA service the name of the previous owner of the ship"

It'll be interesting how they handle this. They can't claim any exemptions about sensitivity of material which removes one significant potential road block. With that information available it should considerable help the accuracy of our articles about the RFA vessels currently in commission. David Newton 23:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've received a reply from the Defence Logistics Organisation asking whether the format they were proposing to send the information in is alright. I should receive it early next week. David Newton 22:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Active in service
I've created Template:Active in service to allow us to more easily track which ships are currently in fleet service in the world. It's intended for use in ship tables. David Newton 18:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As one who had been dreading going around changing "active as of 2004" to "active as of 2005", I saw this work and thought, "Great idea. Wish I'd thought of that." In other words, well done and thank you. Jinian 01:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

New Table Format
We have shifted a good number of the tables across to the wiki markup, rather than sticking with HTML, as the wiki markup is a good deal easier on the eyes to edit. However, I have been struck by how powerful the syntax adopted by the battles WikiProject for their tables is. This evening I have been fiddling with the format of the standard table and the template syntax that is now available with the Wikipedia. The result is that I believe I can reproduce the current standard table format for almost all cases (the Military Sealift Command and ships like the destroyer escorts in their current format perhaps being the exceptions) in a way that is a good deal more maintainable and centralised. It is somewhat an extension of the Template:Active in service that I made and mentioned above.

Each ship class would require a number of templates to be created for it. Those templates would carry the measurements and properties that are common to each ship class. I have also allowed for the variation of each individual ship by including a bit in the table code called Individual ship. In cases where there are single ship classes it may well be useful to create a version of the table for those cases. Please see this copy of the table for the current HMS Invincible as an example of what can be done and let me know what you think: 

David Newton 00:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. It would have saved me going through a dozen pages to fix one mistake yesterday. A few questions:


 * What is the syntax for all these elements? What gets –  and what gets { – }? Is there a tutorial, or do you have a page with all the Template: things that need to be written?
 * Is there a way to make inapplicable lines not show up; things like "Homeport:" for decommissioned ships, and "Aircraft:" for ships that don't have any? Simply cutting out or commenting out those lines doesn't seem to work. Maybe splitting the table into Ship_Career_Table or Active_Ship_Career_Table, and _Ship_Characteristics_Table:


 * On a more general point, some ships are changed substantially over their careers--e.g. their armament and even their lengths. Should the Ship Characteristics document their original configurations, or final, or modal, or what?

OK, the syntax { – } is used for template variables within the Template:Ship table. You will notice that there is not Template:Ship ordered defined. Ship ordered is defined individually within each use of the ship table as it is different for each ship. The other syntax, ie, is used for things that are generally common within a class. For example, all Flight 1 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have a common weapons outfit to my knowledge. If you look at, for example, ship displacement, you will find a template Template:Ship displacement defined. At that ship displacement you will find a template variable defined. Looking at the Invincible-class aircraft carrier, you will find a template Template:Ship displacement box Invincible class aircraft carrier defined. The corresponding version for an Arleigh- Burke-class destroyer might be Template:Ship displacement box Arleigh Burke class destroyer. With that in place all you would need to do to get the displacment of an Arleigh Burke-class vessel instead of an Invincible-class vessel would to substitute "|Ship displacement=Arleigh Burke class destroyer" for "|Ship displacement=Invincible class aircraft carrier" in the table. A good tutorial of how to use this sort of thing can be found on the Battles Wikiproject page.

I've not found a good way to do the second point yet. One possibility would be to alter the templates for things like aircraft, armament, home port etc., to include table markup. That way if they were not included then the table markup would also not appear with them. That will require further experimentation, but it is something I intend to try and get working if I can.

As for your final point, I would think that individual ship could be used for later characteristics. For example, all the short-hull Essex-class ships could have a Template:Ship armament box short hull Essex class aircraft carrier which includes their original configuration. Then the various modifications that got applied to each ship could be covered using the individual ship variables. The individual ship variables was a major change that I needed to make from the battlebox which served as the prototype for this idea.

I'll do some more work on the table template and keep you up to date with what is going on with it. I hope to be able to report success soon. When I'm fiddling with the template please be prepared to see the version on this page be broken occasionally. David Newton 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, further progress has been made. I've further altered the template to allow optional parts of the table. The problem is that while the yes to them option works fine (as evidenced by the example table on the right), the no to them option isn't quite so good. It produces a table that does not have the lines we don't want, but it does have some ugly spacing issues (as evidence by the example table on the left). They'll have to be sorted out before the table is ready for mainstream useage. I would appreciate some ideas on how they could be dealt with. David Newton 11:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Even more progress to report. I appear to have fixed the ugly spacing problem. It was simply a case of creating the correctly styled table row when the optional row not wanted (like say electronic warfare and decoys for USS Constitution or HMS Victory) variable is set to no.


 * So, in summary, I believe that there are two things needed before the table can go live.


 * 1) What other features are needed in the ship table to cover permutations I've not thought of?
 * 2) Writing the instructions on how to use the thing!

David Newton 13:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responses
Can a user include only certain sections of the table, and not the stuff that is inapplicable? Also, I'd add entries for Damage Value (or just Value), and some sort of entries for how and when the ship was destroyed and if the crew survived, all in a separate, includable template. You might want to include sub-dividers with different colors, such as what is used by battleboxes to include a campaignbox in the table. -- brian0918 &#153;  14:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are certain sections of the table that are optional. I have made those sections that all ships possess as non-optional, so they will appear even if all the optional sections are not in the table. The optional sections are:


 * 1) Purchased
 * 2) Commissioned
 * 3) Decommissioned
 * 4) In service
 * 5) Out of service
 * 6) Struck
 * 7) Homeport
 * 8) Range
 * 9) Test depth
 * 10) Capacity
 * 11) Time to activate
 * 12) Sensors
 * 13) Electronic warfare and decoys
 * 14) Armament
 * 15) Armour
 * 16) Aircraft


 * In order to make the optional sections appear or not as necessary the appropriate variable needs to be set to yes or no. For example, in order to make the time to activate cell not appear, which will not be necessary for most ships, the variable "Ship table time to activate" should be set to no. The table markup necessary for the time to activate row of the table will then not appear. Conversely, set it to yes and the markup will appear. The other optional table part variables work in the same way, as would any other optional variables that might get added to the table.


 * How and when the ship met its end is covered in the fate section of the table. That could be set to active in service, with vessels that are currently active, in reserve, as a mueseum ship, wrecked, sunk by enemy action, scrapped, building, etc. After the variable "Ship fate", the variable "individual ship" allows the global identifier to be elaborated upon. For example, if the variable "Ship fate" gets set to scrapped, then the following variable "individual ship" would then carry information on what firm scrapped the ship, when and where for example. In the case of a sinking, the "Ship fate" variable would be set to being sunk by enemy action or wrecked as appropriate, and the "individual ship" variable would then detail who or what sank the ship, where and when.


 * As for your points about "damage value" and sub-dividers with different colours, I don't see the point of those. This is meant to duplicate the functionality of the current table for ships, that has been used for a couple of years now, for ships, but to have that functionality in a more easily maintainable and more consistent form. It is particularly applicable for large ship classes where common features of the design will be shown consistently from ship to ship in the class, and also for cases where tables need to be changed, such as when a ship decommissions. Instead of having to add sections to the table, all that needs to happen is that the variable for the decommissioning row needs to be changed from no to yes and the date of the decommissioning added.


 * The question about the casualties from a sinking is potentially something that could be added to the table, as lots of ships have been lost to enemy action. It might be useful to have information about only 3 Hood crew members surviving. On the other hand, it could just be information overload. I don't know of any of the existing tables where that information is presented. Nonetheless, it certainly is well worth looking at. David Newton 17:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How about making "Draught" an optional value--and also "Draft", so we can use one or the other? :-) ("Armour" doesn't bother me the same way, for some reason.)


 * Also, saying a ship's "Fate" is to be {active in service}} doesn't really make sense. How about "Status" for ships which have been ordered (or awarded) / are under construction / are undergoing trials / are active / are decommissioned in reserve? After that, they have "Fate"s.


 * For submarines, "[Test ]Depth" is another significant value. And a fair number of ships have "Nickname"s.


 * However, not everything has to go in the table. The firm that scrapped a ship can go in the text of the page--if it's needed at all. Conversely, the fate of the Hood deserves more than one line in the table.
 * &mdash;wwoods 07:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Test depth is certainly something that I hadn't thought of that merits inclusion. I'll sort that out once I've finished this reply. As for fate and status, that is a somewhat semantic distiction, but one probably worth making. Also, given how relatively easily the two different spellings for draught/draft and armour/armor can be put in place that's also worth doing. I'll also add nickname as an optional row. David Newton 10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tutorial
This template is an attempt to reproduce the functionality of each of the different types of table that have been developed for the WikiProject Ships in a more easily maintainable and centrally editable fashion. It has functionality to allow the common specifications of a ship class to be created in one template and then promulgated to all ships of that class, meaning all the information of all the ships of the class is as consistent as possible. It also has functionality to include or exclude certain optional table rows. For example, there would be little point in including the electronic warfare equipment of a sailing frigate, and little point in including the time required to activate a ship from reserve for a vessel already in active service.

Optional Table Rows
The optional rows for the table are as follows:


 * 1) Purchased
 * 2) Commissioned
 * 3) Decommissioned
 * 4) In service
 * 5) Out of service
 * 6) Captured
 * 7) Struck
 * 8) Reinstated
 * 9) Homeport
 * 10) Range
 * 11) Endurance
 * 12) Test depth
 * 13) Capacity
 * 14) Time to activate
 * 15) Sensors
 * 16) Electronic warfare and decoys (with a variable EW)
 * 17) Armament
 * 18) Armour
 * 19) Aircraft

In order to include or exclude an optional row set the variable "Ship table optional row" to yes or no as appropriate. For example, for a ship without a cargo capacity the value "Ship table capacity=no" would be correct, where a ship with embarked aircraft would need the value "Ship table aircraft=yes". The one slight exception to that rule is the armour variable which is explained below.

Class Feature Templates
A number of the rows allow the common features of a ship class to be reproduced across the whole class from one template. Those rows are:


 * 1) Displacement
 * 2) Length
 * 3) Beam
 * 4) Draught
 * 5) Propulsion
 * 6) Speed
 * 7) Range
 * 8) Endurance
 * 9) Test depth
 * 10) Capacity
 * 11) Complement
 * 12) Sensors
 * 13) Electronic warfare and decoys (with a variable EW)
 * 14) Armament
 * 15) Armour
 * 16) Aircraft

To use ability of the template to display the common features of a class from one central document, Wikipedia templates covering those variables that apply to the ship need to be created. For example, for the Invincible-class aircraft carrier, templates such as Template:Ship length box Invincible class aircraft carrier and Template:Ship aircraft box Invincible class aircraft carrier have been created.

The templates must use the following name structure:


 * Template:Variable box XXXX

where variable is the name of the parameter referred to, such as sensors for the sensors of the ship, complement for the complement etc and XXXX is a descriptor of the ship class, such as Invincible class aircraft carrier or Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

Individual Ship Variables
Following many of the template variables will be found a separate section "Individual ship". The intention of that section is to allow variations from the class unique to each ship to be covered in the table. For example, if one ship in a class has half its guns removed at a certain date, then the appropriate number "Individual ship" variable would be the place to cover that change.

Spelling Variants
In order to accomodate the traditions of the Wikipedia, the template can cope with both British and American English. This comes up at two points in the table: draught/draft and armour/armor. In order to tell the template which variant to use, two variables must be set. For the armour variable, the functionality is incorporated into "Ship table armour". To set the armour row not to appear the variable should still be set to "no". To set the armour row to appear with British spelling it should be set to "yes uk", and to set it to appear with American spelling it should be set to "yes us". For the draught variable, the functionality is implemented using "Draught", with the variable simply being set to "uk" or "us" as appropriate.

There is one other variation in the structure of the table: the variable "Ship table fate" can be set in two ways. Set it to status and the ship will have a status row in the table, and set it to fate and the ship will have a fate row instead.

Unique Values
The most simple part of the table covers the following variables:


 * 1) Ship image
 * 2) Ship caption
 * 3) Ship country
 * 4) Ship ordered
 * 5) Ship flag
 * 6) Ship laid down
 * 7) Ship launched
 * 8) Ship purchased
 * 9) Ship commissioned
 * 10) Ship decommissioned
 * 11) Ship in service
 * 12) Ship out of service
 * 13) Ship struck
 * 14) Ship homeport
 * 15) Ship motto
 * 16) Ship nickname

They are unique to each ship and thus should be entered as in a normal table. "Ship image" is the photo of the ship that appears at the top of the table and should use Wikipedia image markup. "Ship caption" is the caption for that image. "Ship flag" is the ensign/jack of the navy/ies that the ship serve(d) with and again should use the appropriate Wikipedia image markup.

Ship Status Variables
For the variable "ship fate" a variety of templates have been created to provide consistency and linkage for ships. The variables defined include:


 * 1) active in service
 * 2) target
 * 3) sunk enemy action
 * 4) wrecked
 * 5) ordered
 * 6) building
 * 7) museum ship
 * 8) scrapped
 * 9) in reserve
 * 10) unknown
 * 11) transferred
 * 12) exploded
 * 13) awaiting disposal
 * 14) sold for commercial service
 * 15) scuttled

As with the class common feature templates, "ship fate" is followed a by numbered "individual ship" variable which can be used to flesh out the broad categories, such as when a ship was wrecked, where is a muesum ship, who built it etc.

Please let me know how I need to make that tutorial clearer. David Newton 12:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Some ships are "Ordered" and some [have contracts for them] "Awarded". The US Naval Vessel Register lists Award Date. I suppose the two are equivalent, but if it's easy to provide for the option, you might as well.


 * As I understood the guidelines, the caption for the infobox picture is optional, though the image itself should have alternate text.


 * For ships with multinational careers, is it possible to lay them out? See, e.g., USS Sea Fox (SS-402). Or should each career get its own page, however stubby?


 * For clarity, how about a List of ship tables, listing all the CLASSNAME_class_TYPE ship table s done or to be done; each page having a list of all the elements that need to be constructed:


 * Template:Image box CLASSNAME_class_TYPE
 * Template:Image box CLASSNAME_class_TYPE
 * Template:Flag box CLASSNAME_class_TYPE (See WikiProject Ships/Tables)
 * Template:Flag box CLASSNAME_class_TYPE
 * Template:Laid down box CLASSNAME_class_TYPE
 * Template:Laid down box CLASSNAME_class_TYPE
 * Put a link to the CLASSNAME_class_TYPE ship table on the CLASSNAME_class_TYPE page, and add "See CLASSNAME_class_TYPE ship table" to the instructions on Template:Ship table, so that someone who wants to add or change the information can easily find it.
 * &mdash;wwoods 18:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * &mdash;wwoods 18:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So far as I am aware, it is usual practice to provide ships that had significant careers in two different navies with different pages for each navy. For vessels like destroyer escorts and escort carriers that saw service in both the USN and RN during WWII, but only just with the USN, I have been putting them into one table and on one page. The example you quote above almost certainly deserves two separate pages, since USS Sea Fox had a career of over 20 years in the Turkish Navy. David Newton 22:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Going Live
I've made one more small change to the template table. I have inserted a row for a ship's nickname. Since there has been no more feedback for nearly a month, and since I left messages on the talk pages of all those who said they participate in this WikiProject letting them know what I've been planning, I've decided that people must be fairly happy with what I've done. I have therefore started the process of taking the table out of beta stage and live onto the main encyclopedia. I have now started to replace the Nimitz class aircraft carrier tables with a version of the template table. David Newton 21:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good. There's some whitespace quirks--space below, or above and below some entries in the table.


 * Supposing someone wanted to add yet another line to the table, like "Well deck capacity:" for LSDs, to pick an example I've recently been doing. Would that cause an unsightly line with to appear in all other pages using the table until someone went through them and set them to "CHARACTERISTIC=no"? It'd be more robust if they were all absent by default.
 * &mdash;wwoods 23:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it would cause something nasty to appear in the table. That's precisely why I wanted to check whether there were any other rows that people wanted to add to the table before taking it live. There actually is a row for capacity already in the table. It was primarily intended for naval cargo ships and the like, but it could be easily adapted for well deck capacity I think. So, please let me know whether there is anything else that needs to be added to it before any more get put up. At the moment it is manageable to change each one, since there are only a few experimental and example tables around, and the 10 Nimitz class examples that I have put up. Go much beyond that, and the job of altering all those tables would be simply impossible.


 * As for the whitespace, I really don't know why it does that. With the wiki markup I've used it shouldn't do it. One thing I have discovered is necessary is that when putting data into the ship templates, like for example all the radars and sonars that modern vessels have, in order to get rid of whitespace within table cells, it is necessary to make sure that all the entries are on the same line, not separated. It makes editing them a little less good, but it makes the table appear a good deal better.David Newton 21:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this. I don't particularly care for some of it. For example, not all ships of the same class share the same characteristics. This is particularly true of early vessels and those built by multiple shipyards. As for adding something to the table, I would like to see an optional "Captured" since many early ships were acquired this way. Bottom line: this simply looks harder than what I'm currently doing. Jinian 23:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have tried to accomodate this. The main idea of the tables is that major variants in the class could be covered by templates, like say short-hull and long-hull Essex-class carriers or Flight I, Flight II and Flight IIA in the case of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Beyond that, the individual ship options could be used to fill in things unique to each ship. So, if one vessel ended up fitted with an experimental radar, for example, that could be covered in the individual ship part of the table.


 * The point about captured as a row is a very good one. It's not applicable to modern vessels, but it certainly is necessary for many sail-powered warships. I am curious as to why you did not reply during the last month? I left a message on your talk page, and judging by your user contributions you have been active during that time. That was after all the whole point of leaving a message on the talk page of all the participants of the WikiProject and developing it on the talk page of the project. I wanted this to be something that others could have an input into and a say in the development of. That doesn't seem to have been the case, with one exception, unfortunately.David Newton 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at the Cassin-class of destroyers, you'll see that every one has different characteristics. Now, granted, it's only four ships, but many early classes of destroyers that have yet to be done are probably like this (6-8 ships, different shipyards, non-standard chars). So, it's not a point of having major variants covered, but rather a change from ship to ship within the class.


 * I appreciate that this part of the project is a priority for you, but you can hopefully understand that it's not something that is/was high on my list. We all have our pet projects, and I've prefered to spend my time elsewhere. So, sorry for the delay in the input, but I hope it's helpful in any case. Jinian 18:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, with the Cassin-class destroyers the best way to deal with it inside the framework of this table would be to use the individual ships part of the table. I think I've covered pretty much all the things that are likely to vary majorly from one ship to another with that. So, if you did want to use this sort of construction on those destroyers and other classes like them, the best way to do it would be to go with none for the template to use and then fill in each table individually. Of course you needn't use the new-style markup at all, which would solve matters. ;) I guess that this is more suited to modern ships where standards are more homogenous, but I would contend it is still useful. David Newton 21:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

French Naming Convention
Hello ! I have tried to suggest a naming convention for French ships, also addressing the problems which non-French-speaking people (and some French-speaking people, sot that matters... :p) usually meet with the articles and particules. I've tried to do it trying to e consistant with the naming convention which I had observed for the ships of the Royal Navy on Wikipedia. However, since I am not a real member of this project, I would appreciate if someone could give it a quick check, to make sure it is really consistant with what is said here (Talk:French_Navy).


 * Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Gdr 13:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Oh, as for the Free French Forces and modern usage of the flag with the cross of Loraine, I think that the flag is the unit flag, not the national one (uses the regular three-striped blue-white-red flag for the national flag). There is a photograph of the Aconit stealth frigate flying the cross of Lorraine here, if someone would like to link to it for illustration :)

Cheers ! Rama 06:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please correct any mistakes at WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Gdr 13:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

A ship's article stubiness
I've noticed that some ships have been labeled as stubs, but don't meet the traditional definition. Three basic types emerge (1) Some of the articles are missing all but the most basic of information (launch, commissioning, decommission, class type) and, although longer than a paragraph, seem to rate the category "stub". (2) Others, like USS Yorktown (CG-48), were marked as stubs when they clearly had blocks of information, but also clearly missing years of history. (3) Still other ships are marked as stubs while they (the ships themselves) are under construction.


 * 1) 2 seems odd and not fully justified and #3 looks blatantly wrong. If the purpose of labelling a ship's article a stub is to encourage editors to work to expand it, I'd prefer that we focus on those in the first category. After all, how much can you say about a ship that hasn't even been launched? Jinian 14:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh?! What's going on with that ensign?
I've started to upload versions of certain flags in the Wikipedia that do not have copyright problems attached to them and have clear source information. One of those flags is a PNG version of the British Red Ensign. When I was clearing out links to the GIF version I came across a distinct problem in the standard table. If anyone has any clue what causes the system to this User:David_Newton/Sandbox when the flag is rendered with identical code inside and outside of a table I would greatly appreciate some insight. David Newton 21:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please disregard. I fouled up with the code for the SVG. I'd forgotten to make areas explicitly white and I left them with no colour. That's fine on a white background but does tend to show up on a blue background rather! David Newton 21:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blue flags on blue background
&mdash;wwoods 22:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concur that it's a problem. I don't mind the solution as long as no one starts believing that the white border is part of the flag. Not sure how else to address it though. Jinian 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would it help to change the background colour, e.g. to the lightsteelblue used by the Template:Infobox Military Unit. JimmyTheOne 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to solve the problem by putting a white border around the image itself in Image:US_unionjack34.png, Image:US_unionjack35.png and Image:US_unionjack36.png. I will remove the borders if this is bad practice. PAR 20:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's another way of putting a border around an image. The border is thinner, which is good, but maybe gray would be a more subliminal color? I don't know the numerical code to replace the one in that template.
 * "... align=center| "
 * Although I agree that the best solution would be images with the border built-in.
 * —wwoods 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ensigns and Jacks With Copyright Problems
There are a number of ensigns and jacks which are linked to in the ensigns table that are a problem from the point of view of copyright. They either do not have source information, or they are fair use images that should not be used if at all possible. I'm compiling a list of the ensigns/jacks concerned and what is wrong with them. We can then go through and fix what is wrong.

Images Still Extant As Problems


 * Image:Argentinajacksmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Canada naval jack.png - no licence information
 * Image:Colombiaensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Colombian Naval Jack.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia
 * Image:Ecuadorian Naval Jack.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia
 * Image:Ecuadorensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Elsalvadorensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Kmensign.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia
 * Image:Kaiserliche Kriegsflagge.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia
 * Image:Guatemalaensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Hondurasensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Ie-jack.gif - clained PD but no source information
 * Image:Regia Marina Ensign.png - claimed PD based on false premise that all images of national flags cannot be copyrighted, no licence information but probably public domain
 * Image:Marina Militare Ensign.png - claimed PD based on false premise that all images of national flags cannot be copyrighted, no licence information but probably public domain
 * Image:Mexicojacksmall.png - no source or licence information
 * Image:Nicaraguaensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Perujacksmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:SA Navy Flag.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Scn-ensign.png - no source or licence information
 * Image:RSN Ensign.gif - from World Flag Database, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia
 * Image:Thaiensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap, and copyrighted image in much larger format uploaded at start of January 2006.
 * Image:Armymajor.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap
 * Image:Dtomjack large.png - claimed PD based on false premise that all images of national flags cannot be copyrighted, no source or licence information
 * Image:Ukraine-ensign.png - claimed PD based on false premise that all images of national flags cannot be copyrighted, no source or licence information
 * Image:Uruguayjacksmall.png - claimed PD but no source information
 * Image:Venezuelaensignsmall.png - claimed PD but no source information

Images Deleted and Superseded


 * Image:Ranensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - done. Since deleted as a redundant image.
 * Image:Chilejacksmall.png - claimed PD but no source information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Chineseensign.gif - no licence or source information since speedy deleted by an admin
 * Image:Confederate Naval Ensign.png - claimed PD based on false premise that all images of national flags cannot be copyrighted, source does not have copyright information about image since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject.
 * Image:Kdmpennant.png - no source or licence information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Freefrenchensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Fgnjack.png - no source or licence information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles
 * Image:Reichskriegsflagge.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Indian jack.png - not clear what licence flag it is from is licensed under - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Japaneseensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Rnznensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - done Since deleted as a redundant image.
 * Image:Netherlands jack.png - no licence information - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Rujack.png - no licence information - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Ruensign.png - no licence information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Soviet Navy Jack.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia - since speedy deleted by an admin and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Supennant.png - no source or licence information - since speedy deleted by an admin and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Rfaensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap - since speedy deleted by an admin and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:Rmasensign.png - fair use claimed but should be replaced asap - since speedy deleted by an admin and made redundant by replacement image uploaded.
 * Image:rnensign.png - no source or licence information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - done
 * Image:Usnjack.png - no source or licence information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles - done

Images Deleted Without Replacement


 * Image:Argentina navy flag.png - from Flags of the World, copyrighted incompatible with Wikipedia since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject
 * Image:Canada aux jack.png - no licence information since speedy deleted by an admin outside the wikiproject

Images Superseded Which Need Purging From Articles


 * Image:Braziljacksmall.png - claimed PD but no source information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles
 * Image:Frajack.png - no source or licence information link in table replaced with file with licensing and source information needs to be purged from other articles

Images With Problems Sorted Out


 * Image:Kkkensign.png - no licence or source information - since made clear that a Wikipedia user created the material.
 * Image:Csnjack.png - claimed PD based on false premise that all images of national flags cannot be copyrighted, no source information since made clear that User:The Epopt created the image and released it into the public domain.

As you can see there is a significant problem with the ensigns and jacks in the table. I am guilty of some of this as I uploaded some of the ones where fair use is claimed. However, I have been working over the past few days to get rid of some of the images like that. So far I've dealt with the British, Australian and New Zealand ensigns. I've also uploaded properly licensed and sourced versions of the RAF ensign, British blue and red ensigns. I've also covered some of the Australian and New Zealand flags that were problematic. David Newton 00:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Malo and I have changed all pages using Image:Usnjack.png except a couple of user_pages. —wwoods 00:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures from navyphotos
Jimmy Wales has decreed that


 * All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and will be deleted.

As you can see at Category:Images used with permission, this decree mainly affects articles about ships of the Royal Navy which use a lot of images from http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/ with permission (see Template:Copyrighted-navyphotos).

Is there anything we can do? I note that the template says "This image is copyrighted by the maintainer of the Web site http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/ [i.e. David Page] and used with permission" but in most cases that's not true; David Page merely scanned the photos or uploaded them from other contributors as described at. In most cases the true copyright holder is unknown and probably unknowable. Gdr 17:41, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: what is the status now on the use of navyphotos images? Could fair use be used? SoLando 04:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Maritine War Graves
In a followup on a recent edit to war graves, User:Mark.murphy pointed me the current list of UK Maritine War Graves at http://www.mod.uk/consultations/maritime_graves/controlled_sites.htm

This looks like the basis of an article that might interest peolple here, but I would have thought there should be a wider, international list of ship wrecks as war graves. -- Solipsist 22:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better table?
Playing with various tables, I found this bit better looking than the current Ship infobox tables. It's currently used in RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 and RMS Queen Mary 2 articles. What do you think? (below). undefined You could replace the initial tables header with the new one and it will look virtually the same except that I included the vertical stay on top so it's easier to read, that will add a bit more labour of pasting it after "|-". undefined -- WB July 5, 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Are metric measures not permitted?
I received the following on my talk page:


 * About measures in the Sven Foyn article
 * One thing is "kW" for horsepower, another is "km/h" for knots. This is an article about a person that lived and died a hundred years ago, and the measures you use were not used at that time. When it comes to "km/h" at sea, its still not used. Ulflarsen 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Some editors don't want metric units to be provided for metric readers, even if dual. This is particularly relevant to ship articles. Please take part in the discussion at: Suggested rewrite of 'units' section in Manual of Style. Bobblewik (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Using new jack for old ships
Not surprisingly, some random editors have started changing the jack on USN ships from the 18th century to the First Navy Jack. We need some consistency on this. Should every ship that ever served in the United States Navy have the current (whatever that may be) jack in the ship table? Or should each ship have the jack that she actually flew?

Personally, I vote for the jacks reflecting what the ship actually flew. The first Boston never flew the DTOM jack, so why should it be identified that way?

Ultimately, though, consensus on this is more important, so we can make the decision once. I'm flexible if the rest of the project wants to use the current jack (and then we should use a template, because the DTOM jack is anticipated to be temporary only). Jinian 12:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to drop a though here, I'd like to say that there are instances where the choice of the flag reflects actual information. For instance, the Redoutable wears the Blue-White-Red flag of the Republic and the Empire, but the Soleil Royal would wear the white fleur-de-lys flag of the Monarchy. This is necessary for some other countries than the USA, and to make the whole thing consistant, might be generalised to the whole encyclopedia. Rama 14:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a question regarding the use of the USN jacks: which jack should we use for ships in the mothball fleet? Technically, US Reserve fleet ships are still in the war on terrorism, but they haven't actually fought. Thoughts on this from anyone? TomStar81 00:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I was making changes to civil war era ship articles before David Newton alerted me to this project. What I have done is assume that the proper jack is the one that the ship flew, and accordingly have used Image:US_unionjack36.png - the 36-star union jack of 1844-1865 on many civil war era union ships. Also availiable are the 34 and 35 star versions.

Improvement drive
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Unclear USN speak
The article Iowa class battleship is on peer review. What do these lines mean?

"nine 16 inch (406 mm) 50 and six 5 inch (127 mm) 38 guns"

"5 inch (127 mm) 38 caliber guns"

How can they be 5 inch caliber and 38 caliber at the same time? Rmhermen 13:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * the gun's barrel is 5 inches inside diameter, and 38 times that in length (190 inches, 15.83 feet) &#10149;the Epopt 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is common (as seen in the first example above) to state the caliber multiple without saying what it refers to i.e.:
 * 5 inch (127 mm) 38 guns.
 * This might be acceptable in the artillery domain, but it is not helpful to our readers, as was demonstrated by the question.


 * Perhaps it would help if we were more explicit. The '38 caliber' really means '38 calibers', '38 caliber multiples' or '38 times the caliber'. So we could have a more explicit format:
 * 5 inch (127 mm) 38 caliber-multiple guns.
 * 5 inch (127 mm) 38 calibers guns.


 * Of these two, I prefer the second. What do other people think? Bobblewik 16:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

USS Grapple
This ship was deployed for hurricane relief. Unfortunately we don not have an article on it yet. Could anyone here put one up? Rmhermen 14:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Note that the ship you need is at USS Grapple (ARS-53). Jinian 13:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rmhermen 17:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Saint/St. Louis
There are two identical articles :


 * SS St. Louis


 * MS Saint Louis.

My two questions are:

1. How are we supposed to write, in general, regarding a (ship) name : "Saint" or "St." ?

2. What title is better and should stay : "MS" or "SS" ? (and of course "Saint" or "St." ?). The Wikipedians are welcome to help editting it.

Danny-w 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (question moved here from project page)


 * For the prefix question, see Naming conventions (ships), which says, "If more than one prefix was used, choose the best-known and create a redirect from the other." For the Saint/St question, see Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Here's a table of Google hits for the possible forms:


 * I think it's pretty clear that SS St. Louis is the proper name for the article and MS Saint Louis should be redirected and merged. Gdr 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Done &#10149;the Epopt 14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright
I've been working a longtime on ship articles as a personal project and officially added my name to the Wikiproject name just now. I had a quick question though regarding a copyright issue I encountered. as noted in the template below...if a sailor in the US Navy took an photograph while he was on duty, it is considered a work of the US Government and considered in the public domain correct? What if that sailor marks it as copyrighted? --ScottyBoy900Q 04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. Subject to disclaimers.


 * On duty, yes, because while on duty one is merely an agent of the government. Off duty, the sailor would presumably own the copyright, just as if the sailor had written a novel in his/her spare time. I suppose in some cases we (and the Navy, for that matter), have to take the sailor's word about on/off status, unless the photo were of a dateable event and you had access to the duty logs. :-) Stan 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * More suitable defaults might be the following, unless the person doing the uploading knows that the work (which I interpret to mean the original photograph) really was taken by a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy during the course of official duties. That's not true of all photographs at NARA or the Naval Historical Center; some come originally from private collections; some come from other branches of the military. I suggest it's safer to assert what you know based on your own source rather than what you guess based on your source's apparent source. Of the tags available today, I think these two come closest. (P.S. Why does the first of these tags contain a different image than the same tag in Wikipedia Commons?) -- Mccomb 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

PD-USGov-NARA

PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC


 * These templates are a good option in many cases. Commons is a separate project, so any consistency has to be achieved by personal effort on somebody's part. (The dream is that someday all PD images end up over there, so no need for these templates in en:, but that's a ways off.) Stan 18:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Classification
I've been retooling the infobars for the United States Navy's battleship classes, and hit a snag with the Nevada class battleships: Should they be classified as battleships, or should they be classified as super dreadnoughts? There is an entry on the battleship page for super dreadnoughts, so its not a huge difference, but I am trying to get this factually right. TomStar81 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Different Image Copyright Question
Ok...here's a different copyright question. There is a very nice gentleman who has been emailing me who is a little upset some of the images off of his website were used on wikipedia. I actually uploaded the images myself, so that is why he has contacted me. The problem here is that the images are public doman and are available through the US Naval Historical Center (NHC). This gentleman is the one who actually scanned the images in at the Naval Hist. Center for use on his site (http://www.destroyerhistory.org). He is claiming that the images that are on his site, even thoguh he obtained them through the Public Domain at the NHC, are actually not able to be used here because he considers them to be his personal work. In his words:
 * "Yes, that image and most other images on my site exist in various forms at the Naval Historical Center or the National Archives, where anyone can go and scan them, but as I am the one who has done it at my own expense, I regard the IMAGES as mine, to give away if I wish but not to have taken from me."

So as we have been e-mailing each other, I invited (and highly reccommended) him to visit the Ships WikiProject site to comment here directly. Is his argument valid that even though the images on his site are in the Public Domain and marked on his own site as taken from government records...because he scanned them though they are considered his personal work? I was under the impression that the actual photographer/artist was the only one who could claim ownership of the image (and in this case the artist/owner happens to be an agent of the US Navy)--ScottyBoy900Q 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC).


 * His argument is absurd. A slavish copy (which scanning certainly is) does not take a work from the public domain and give its copyright to an individual.  (He would retain the copyright to, for example, a photograph of an artfully arranged pile of public domain images.)  While we would like to be friendly, the bottom line is that the image is in the public domain, and is free for our use. If I scan, OCR, and print out the complete works of Shakespeare, does that give me the right to prevent anyone else from ever printing Shakespeare's works? &#10149;the Epopt 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I can see why he is upset about it. He has been very nice in his e-mails, but he is just upset that he spent so much time actually going to the NHC to scan the pictures for his website, and I simply uploaded it here without going through the hassle.  --ScottyBoy900Q 01:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless the scanner has done any creative modifications to the images he can't claim copyright. Direct scans don't qualify as such. What I gathered, the scanner isn't claiming copyright on the whole pictures, just the scans. This is a bit tricky though, because under some circumstances, like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa, you can claim copyright on that particular photo. I would advice trying to settle this by asking for forgiveness, since it seems that the scanner might have given permission to use the scans if asked at first. --Laisak 01:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, he actually said he would have given permission. The reason I did not ask was simply because the image tag on his website simply credited the photo to the Navy Historical Center and mentioned nothing about asking for permission to use images already in the Public Domain.  That's it. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out Copyright issues and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights if you can find a previous case similar to this. Although in my opinion he has no legal case, it would really be a shame if this scanner would get the impression of Wikipedia users as "picture robbers". If a friendly settlement is achieved you could even try to persuade him to become a contributor here. --Laisak 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Earlier today I noticed a savvy German site that had scans of PD material, with the thumbnail looking normal, but the full-size image blazoned with the website URL across it. Kind of a sneaky way to ensure that no one else wants to use the images you scanned in... We should be nice and mention the person in the images we pick up from his website, add a little thank-you for doing the physical scanning work. A reply to him could mention that, and point out WP's Alexa ranking, server capacity, etc, which make it a better and more visible choice as image home than anything most individuals can cobble together. Stan 05:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm the "gentleman" about whom this conversation started, here with (I hope) happy solutions (see examples for and  using text in the Summary to clarify the tags I think best apply). A useful approach? -- Mccomb 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks! We're always happy to credit people who perform the labors, and if the link gets you a few extra hits, well that's just fine by me. Stan 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ship classification of Pansarskepp
I'm overly confused about the Pansarskepp type of ships. There is so many names to call them, Swedish: Pansarskepp, Finnish: Panssarilaiva, Dutch: pantserschip, German: Panzerschiff (Pocket battleship), but what are they called in english? I've seen "coastal defence ship", "coastal battleship", "coastal cruiser" and variations of those. So what is the correct english name? I'm trying to figure out what to call the Sverige class cruiser and Ilmarinen (ship). --Laisak 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, from what I figured out is that the generic translation would be "armoured ship", but the thing is these ships are very different from each other. Anyone think there should be an article armoured ship where all these different kinds of ships would be illustrated? --Laisak 18:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Some action at Categories for deletion
One user made some drastic renaming on the ship categories without consulting Categories for deletion. Please check out what's happening and comment on if the changes should remain. --Laisak 01:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling ships she
I was looking over the USS Missouri page and noticed that it called the ship she instead of it. I know calling ships "she" is common practice, but not for encyclopedic sources. Has there been any consensus about this? MechBrowman 01:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've used "she" consistently where possible, with exceptions such as "it" when talking about a wreck or hulk. An unscientific test suggests Encarta uses "it", whilst Britannica uses "it" and "she" interchangeably in the same article. Shimgray | talk | 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When writing the RMS Titanic article, it sounded so much better when "she" was removed from the article. It just sounds to familiar for what Wikipedia style encourages. However, I might have gained this view because of the passion many resources and TItanic enthusists have for the Titanic. Its almost fannish by calling the Titanic "she", and it seems awkward with other ships also. MechBrowman 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a rather long discussion on Missouris discussion page about using "she" and "it" with regard to ships. You may want to check it out. PS: I was the one who wrote the entire Missouri article using "she", just in case you were curious ;) TomStar81 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
The categories for the naval ships are a mess. We have Country Navy ships, Ships of the Country Navy, Naval ships of Country and Country naval ships. Why not one style? And then, we have "Battleships of Country Navy" and "Country Navy battleships".

Apparently, someone User:Joshbaumgartner went straight to CfD with these and different votes went in different directions. Can we reach a consensus here and then go to CfD to straighten them out? I don't have a preference, but would like to see consistency. Jinian 16:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually Joshbaumgartner skipped the whole CfD process. It was User:TexasAndroid who put them there to try to verify the changes by Josh, but in the end it all went sour. I personally support the Naval ships of Fooland format since the parent category is Category:Naval ships and it follows the format of Category:Ships by country which is Ships of Fooland. There should be no exceptions on Royal Navies. I think they make the whole thing very confusing. --Laisak 14:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I take full credit for not doing CfDs earlier, not a mistake I've continued since User:TexasAndroid brought it up to me. Generally Ships of foo has become accepted through CfD, although there have been some that have not passed for a variety of reasons.  Generally Ships of foo is accepted, while when categorizing by the proper name of a navy (or other operator), Proper Navy Name ships has been the result.  Naming conventions (categories) did not have a clear country categorization scheme for ships, but this has since been addressed by CfD, and it has been added to the Misc. of country category.  This is the same format that covers military equipment. Joshbaumgartner 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cruise Lines
I feel that there ought to be a Wikiproject for cruise lines; Wikiproject Ships seems to be more-or-less an appropriate parent project for this, even though it set out to be primarily about navies. Anyone interested? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 03:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Index articles; disambiguation or signpost?
I noticed a new category of page, the Signpost article.

Already, USS Merrimack has been labeled as a signpost article. As usual, I don't care as long as we're consistent. Right now, I'm daunted by the idea of reclassing all of the ship index articles as signposts vice disambig - although I suppose someone could always create a bot. Jinian 14:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the definition of "signposts", ship disambiggers don't quality, because all the ships at "USS Foobar" are called that. I've had it in the back of my mind for a long time to create a ship-specific subcategory of disambiguations with a special template, note the subcats of Category:Disambiguation to see others doing this already. Stan 20:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have listed Category:Signpost articles (see Manual of Style (signpost articles)) on Categories for deletion. Thanks/wangi 21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has made a mess of USS Merrimack in the name of MoS:DP. Sigh. Gdr 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please Gdr, assume good faith. Everyone else my reply to Gdr's question is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks/wangi 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement on my table code
Some of you might have noticed that some of the ships that contained the code for that table with optional rows that I wrote earlier this year were displaying things rather oddly earlier today. That is because I have radically altered and simplified the code for the table. Someone has managed to implement a decent IF syntax in the MediaWiki template language so including optional rows in a template is now much easier than it was earlier this year. I have re-written the table code to take advantage of this fact and I have spent last evening and this morning fixing the ship tables that refer to the code.

The basic situation with the appearance and functionality of the code is the same. Optional rows are still optional and compulsory rows will still appear all the time. The difference is that previously there were explicit variables to turn each optional row on and off and now all that needs to happen to have an optional row not appear in a table is to leave it blank. If you leave a compulsory row blank the table will default to a value of Unknown for text and the IIH.png image for image portions. The only explicit variables that are now needed are to set the spelling between draft and draught, depending on whether the ship is British or another nationality. Leaving that blank will default to US spelling and putting anything in it will go to British spelling. I have also got rid of all the references to Individual ship variables since it is now possible to put a template in for common features that the whole class shares and then add information unique to each ship directly after that.

I'll put up a formal tutorial in how to use the table soon, but it is a lot more intuitive than the old version. David Newton 13:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now posted a tutorial of hown to use the new version to the talk page of the template. The template can be found at Template:Ship table. David Newton 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some ship cleanup
Hi there! I'm working on some backlogged categories and ran across these with various cleanup tags. I hope the experts might here have a look at these, and once you're satisfied they conform to your Project style and quality, remove the cleanup tags. Thanks! &mdash; Catherine\talk 06:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) USS Alliance (1877)
 * 2) USS Anderson (DD-411)
 * 3) USS ARD-10
 * 4) USS Bellatrix (AK-20/AKA-3)
 * 5) USS Cabot (CVL-28)
 * 6) USS Cero (SS-225)
 * 7) USS Chief (MCM-14)
 * 8) USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
 * 9) USS George Washington (CVN-73)
 * 10) USS Halsey (DDG-97)
 * 11) USS Hartford grounding
 * 12) USS Mustin (DD-413)
 * 13) USS Parche (SS-384)
 * 14) USS Providence (1775)
 * 15) USS SC-1329
 * 16) USS Schmitt (DE-676)
 * 17) USS Snook (SS-279)
 * 18) USS Vella Gulf (CG-72)
 * 19) USS Walke (DD-416)
 * 20) USS Wichita (CA-45)
 * 21) USS Yale
 * 22) USS Yale (1889)
 * 23) USS Zrinyi (1910)
 * 24) K-173
 * 25) USCG Unimak

Categorization by class
It is common for ships to be categorized by class, and then for the class category to be categorized in the same manner as an individual ship article. However, a problem has arose in that while a class category (Category:Colossus class aircraft carriers for example) may accurately fit in to multiple era/type/country categories (per categorization guidelines), not all individual ships in the class may belong in those categories. Using the example, the Colossus class is clearly a World War II design (most served for a short period at the end of it), as well as clearly being a Cold War carrier of note, with many having served into the early 60s. However, Warrior was not completed until after the war, making her not a World War II carrier, yet the Colossus category is in the World War II as well as Cold War categories. User:Jinian brought up the example of the Nimitz carriers, and the Reagan in particular which is not a Cold War carrier, although the Nimitz class is clearly of Cold War importance. I wanted to get some input on whether to worry about this issue or not, and what solution to impose: Joshbaumgartner 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do nothing: Leave the ships that are part of a class categorized as such and categorize the classes as best fits the class as a whole.  Where individual ships need to be accessable from categories outside of what the class is categorized in, such categories can be added directly to the individual ship pages.  For instance, while the Colossus class may be categorized in the United Kingdom path, those that served with other countries can have such categories added individually.
 * Eliminate class categories: Categorize all class and ship pages directly in the appropriate era/type/country cats.  I don't think this is a good idea, as class categories are useful.
 * Dual list individual ships: Categorize all individual ship articles both in their class as well as listing them in the appropriate era/type/country category(ies) as is done with non-classed ships.  This violates the general guidelines for categories regarding vertical categorization, in that an article should not be categorized in both a category and its parent category.  However, I think that in this case, and given that many ships are not categorized by class, this is possibly a better solution.  It has the added advantage that the researcher can either find a ship by class or without knowing the class with equal ease.
 * Other solutions: Any other ideas?


 * Let me chime in here about why I first weighed in on this subject. The aircraft carriers are categorized *only* by their era. For example, Reagan is in Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers which is in Category:Modern aircraft carriers of the United States which is in Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States. This is different from every other type of ship in the United States Navy. For example, Miller is in Category:Fletcher class destroyers which is in both Category:Cold War destroyers of the United States and Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy.
 * The era categorization must be better than it is if it's going to be the only way to categorize these ships. If, instead, we were to put Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers in the parent category Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States, then I would be less concerned about where it is now. However, when I made that change, you (Josh) reverted that. And that brings us up to date. Jinian 20:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Per previous discussion, Category:United States Navy aircraft carriers has been created. I am in the process of populating it by working down throught the list of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, while at the same time putting each entry in the list of aircraft carriers and where appropriate in the list of World War II ships.  This is taking some time, and I'm through CVL-26 at the moment.  This is more than bot work as I am fleshing out the list entries as well as making sure the class categories are corrected as well.  Hopefully when finished, this will have fully addressed the above concerns. Joshbaumgartner 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Having an article in both cat and and supercat is so contrary to normal en: practice that every random is going to come along and undo it unless you come up with a better explanation and describe it on the categories' pages. (Personally I wouldn't mind ditching the class categories, they're too small to be very useful.) On names like "modern", one could do like the aviation people and use specific year - "1945-1990" suggests "modern" and "Cold War" while being precise and neutral. Stan 14:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm concerned about the first point you've made, and I don't even know that adding a notation to the cat page will save us from the problem of people 'cleaning up' the extra categorizations. Perhaps comments should be inserted in the wiki code to bracket those categorizations that are in line with WP:Ships guidelines, thereby alerting any editor as to why they are there, and causing them to think twice before deleting them thinking they are helping clean things up.  I agree that a lot of the class categories are not overly useful, but I think for some of the more famous ones, especially those know well as a class, for example Nimitz or Essex, it is useful.  However, if we are going to have some it is hard not to have class categories for all, since if they have articles, they have at least some notoriety.  As for the eras, I have already tried to add years to all of the era categorizations to give people a guideline of what years they cover (I haven't gotten them all though).  I use the word approximately though, because it is important that editors be allowed to fudge a bit on whether or not an article belongs in the category.  By naming the category with the year, we are essentially forcing all ships within those years to be listed.  For example, the US mothballed a huge number of ships after WWII, but the decommissionings often were during 1946 or even 47.  If the category is for all ships serving 1945-1990, these ships would have to be listed, but obviously they had no meaningful role in the Cold War era, which is the intended period covered.  By naming by era, not by year, and by providing approximate year guidelines, an editor should feel no need to include those ships in the Cold War category unless they really did have significant service during that period.  I also don't want to do what they have done with airplanes for a couple of reasons.  One, aircraft are by decade, which bears little resemblance to important periods of ship design and operation.  Second, aircraft are listed by first flight date.  If we for example listed by launch or commissioning date, then many ships would be listed in one period while most of their major contributions (if not their greatest ones) will be in other periods that they are not listed in.  Especially given the longer service life of ships versus aircraft, many times a ship is built in one era but yet makes significant contributions in the next (Iowa class battleships for example). Joshbaumgartner 05:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization by era (modern)
As one of the three pillars of the era/type/country categorization for ships, we have some relatively well defined eras (WWI, WWII, etc.) but there remains a problem with the most recent period. The Cold War era wraps up around 1990, which leaves a lot of ships in the period between then and now, with many categorized as modern as a solution. However, it has been pointed out that modern isn't a very good name for an era, and I agree. Is there a better way to categorize these ships? It is akward to have them without categorizations while all other vessels do. I don't know that modern doesn't work, but I would like to have a little better solution. Joshbaumgartner 21:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Words
Is a "battlewagon" the same thing as a "battleship"? TomStar81 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've only ever seen it used as a slang term for battleship, FWIW. Shimgray | talk | 22:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that helps to explain why I have been having trouble with this one passage. It keeps refering to "battlewagons", which I thought were armed helicopters. This makes much more sense. Thanks! TomStar81 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen it as off-hand slang for both battleships and tanks, helicopters is a new one to me. It is I suppose a pretty direct translation of the German Kampfwagen, which is used as more or less equivalent to combat vehicle (i.e. Panzerkampfwagen = tank, or armored combat vehicle). Joshbaumgartner 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)