Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 3

message: I'm bringing over to wikiproject ships the text I just added to .  My opinion is both of these things should be addressed.
*I just accidently ran into this when looking up CSS Charleston.  In my opinion, I think this makes the infobox look unprofessional.  My first thought was that the infobox was using an image from a 3rd-party image server somewhere on the internet, and the image no longer existed.  I think instead this image should be a 100% pure transparent image of either the same size or 1x1 pixel to hide the existence from the users.  Remember that Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors.  In this case, having a glaring INSERT IMAGE HERE at the top of the article turns the article into a memo for future editors.  --Stephane Charette 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is used to quickly identify which articles still need images. It's very handy for those of us who do maintenance on the Project. However, I'd be happy with something that looked nicer or was more transparent. Also, I think the text "insert caption here" should be removed. Jinian 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about for ships that will never have a photo? There just simply isn't one. We have some of those in the CSN plange 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are people's thoughts on my above observation? plange 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the one hand, I agree with you that the "Insert Image Here" looks bad, but on the other hand, I think a line drawing or something could (should?) theoretically be provided for ships without images even if no photo could ever exist.  A quick and dirty fix could be to insert a "|Ship image=" line into the Ship table of articles where the IIH should be removed.  That would remove the IIH and just leave a blank space up there. TomTheHand 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two items that I believe are problems 

message: I've just been making a bulleted list but then it occurred to me to ask here and see if anyone has done this on other ship articles and has a nice table, etc.? See CSS Jamestown -plange 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better question would be, is this appropriate encyclopedic information to be included? Some ships were in commission for decades with some very obscure commanders. I certainly wouldn't want to make this standard for every ship, just because we have the data. Not sure how relevant the commanders for Jamestown are to the history of the ship. Jinian 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I think it's relevant, at least for what I'm writing about (CSN) since it only had a 4 year span it wouldn't be out of control. I know if I was looking up the Jamestown for a paper I would expect to see its commanders, and maybe even some of its more notable officers.plange 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it simpler to just work it into the text? A change of command is a fairly obvious thing to mention in the usual narrative flow of things, and any officer notable enough to be listed seperately would probably be significant enough to mention in the text. Shimgray | talk | 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am looking at it more like an infobox where the user can quickly see the info without having to wade through the article. plange 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: wow, sorry I asked the question. Didn't think I'd get ridiculed for it. That's obviously not what I'm wanting to do Gdrplange 18:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for listing officers and crew? 

message: Could we list proposals for Ships by country below and discuss our support of them?  Jooler had a very reasonable proposal for naming the categories: base it on the navy's article name.  If you have a proposal, please list it.
#By country name, like Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom or Destroyers of Germany.
#:Runs into problems when the country's name is not consistent, like when Great Britain and Northern Ireland formed the United Kingdom.  Also runs into problems in civil wars, but it's easy enough to do a disambiguation: have Ironclads of the USN and Ironclads of the CSN subcats of the Ironclads of the US main cat.  I support and prefer this proposal. TomTheHand 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer option 1 on grounds of accesability to the "masses". I also knew that "Hellenic" = Greek, but that doesn't affect my opinion. Of course, country names can also be an issue: those people who don't link "Royal Navy" with Britain might also confuse England, Great Britain and United Kingdom, for example, but any problems can be resolved in any case by redirects or disambigs. Folks at 137 09:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed with the Ships by Country option. Leaving only one or two navies with their original names is violation of NPOV and increase of systemic bias; Using original names everywhere makes the categories useless. Both accessibility, neutrality and consistency are improved by the first option. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think that 5 or even 6 categories for a ship article would be too many. --Spot87 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there should be any limit, what is the point in a limit for its own sake? Emoscopes Talk 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how way too many categories could be confusing, but I think if each category adds value then it's alright.  I don't know, I could see either side... does listing both the country and the navy add sufficient value?  I think it clears up this dispute and solves certain real problems with using just one or the other.  I would still prefer to just do country, but if we don't do both we might wind up doing neither and having things remain a mess. TomTheHand 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "does listing both the country and the navy add sufficient value?" - in short, yes, as countries have often had more than one navy, e.g. during times of civil war (i.e the Union Navy and the Confederate Navy) and on the flipside one Navy has its roots in more than one country (i.e the (British) Royal Navy descends from the English Navy and has also been the navy of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Hard and fast rules would surely only cause problems where pedantry such as these examples is concerned. Emoscopes Talk 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to give an example of a possible problem with this approach, look at USS Thomas (DD-182).  She served with four navies and so already carries a large number of categories.  Would it be alright to add an additional one for each country? TomTheHand 12:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her large number of categories is fine by me. If you're widely traveled, you're going to have a long record. Lou Sander 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it make sense to divide the article? That would clear things up, you would have a USS Thomas page, HMS St Albans, KNM St Albans and Dostoinyi. There seems to be enough material at least for the first three of this series. --Victor12 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent point, and probably a good solution to this particular problem.  Some ships that have passed through many hands won't have articles long enough to divide, but they'll probably be the exception rather than the rule.  I can accept a small number of articles with many cats. TomTheHand 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for naming categories in Ships by country

message: This is a question I have also left on Template talk:UK-mil-ship-stub, with regards to the phrasing of the UK-mil-ship-stub template. Currently, it reads "military ship", my feeling is that it should read "naval ship"; military being "Of or relating to land forces." I know the Army run a few vessels, but as this stub is used almost exclusively with regards to naval vessels, I feel that this is somewhat incorrect.  Emoscopes Talk 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorted now Emoscopes Talk 10:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording of stub template

message: I am in the midst of a project to document all the White Star Line ships, and have found an area of inconsistency that I'd like to overcome, and I would like to solicit interested folks' opinions. Article names for British liners are sometimes preceded with an "RMS" rather than an "SS". According to the article Royal Mail Ship as well as other non-wiki info I can find, RMS is really only a temporary designation for when mail is actually being carried onboard (kind of like Air Force One is really only that when the President is onboard). Any other time, the ship should properly be referred to as "SS". It seems that RMS usage has taken on the "popular" conception that it is a standard reference to a British ship (a misconception, no doubt, aided by the infamy of the RMS Titanic, since she was under that designation when she went down). Though it seems that the preference at Wikipedia is to use the title which would be most "commonly" used by the public (a problem that is easily overcome by redirect pages), I am concerned as a historian that by doing so we are giving false legitimacy to a misconception. Thus, except for special situations like Titanic, I propose that "SS" be used as the standard Wikipedia format, and I'd like to see if there's a consensus amongst the project folks. Concur? Disconcur? Akradecki 03:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, a toughie. Even if the designation was temporary, if it's the best-known, I'd say it's still legit to use. Not unlike what we do with ships that have had several name changes; any of the names are technically correct, even if the ship carried it for only a day, so we just pick the  most familiar from among them. So for instance if the ship was an "RMS" throughout 90% of its heyday, then "RMS" seems like it would be far more common than "SS". You could clarify in each article by saying "launched as SS Foo", and mention date of first mail carriage. If mail usage was occasional, then "SS" would be more common and thus preferred. Anyway, does anybody really want to push "SS Titanic" as the preferred title? :-) Stan 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stan; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states that the article should be given the most common name that is still unambiguous, so if a ship was primarily known with the prefix RMS its article should be titled as such (with a redirect from SS if it doesn't cause a conflict with another ship) TomTheHand 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian liner question: ''SS'' versus ''RMS''?

message: Someone please cleanup this article, especially the infobox.
It is financed by Hellenic Navy (Greece) so the navy infobox apply. However, since it is a trireme, it has no powerplant and armour to speak of. SYSS Mouse 03:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hard code a infobox for this particular example? GraemeLeggett 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Olympias (trireme)]] 

message: In a phrase like "8 inch gun", is it preferable to have a dash or a space between 8 and inch?  I favor spaces and I think standardization is a good idea but I wanted to discuss it here.  The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states that with units of measurement, a space should be used (preferably non-breaking).  Should that be applied to our gun calibers as well? TomTheHand 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The units master, User:Bobblewik replaces spaces with a hard coded one Emoscopes Talk 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he doesn't; he prefers regular spaces, but maintains a non-breaking space version of his code for people like me (he apparently gets lots of requests, because the MoS specifies non-breaking spaces, but I think he thinks they're silly). TomTheHand 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashes in specifying caliber of gun? 

message: hazegray.org and navsource.org seem to have gone AWOL.  No DNS resolution.  Near as I can tell I can't reach their DNS name servers (same name servers for both).  Nor can I reach them by IP (from another ISPs cache).  Anybody know what's going on?--J Clear 01:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, they're back, like magic.  I'd still like to know what happened.  I couldn't get through last night either.--J Clear 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been having intermittent problems with NavSource yesterday and today, most recently within the past hour. Don't know about HazeGray. Lou Sander 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hazegray and navsource AWOL? 

message: HMS Enterprize (1709) and HMS Enterprize (1743)?  Can someone tell me when and why they were deleted or moved, without redirecting them? Pedant 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the deletion log, the first article apparently had a prod tag added to it and nobody noticed or objected in the required time period.  It was deleted last May.  If you'd like, you could try posting on Wikipedia:Deletion review and ask to have it restored.  The second article doesn't have a history in the deletion log, so I've got no idea what happened to it. TomTheHand 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one was deleted as a copyvio of ; feel free to use that as a source for a new one. Doesn't seem to ever have been a page at the second one. Shimgray | talk | 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to: 

message: Just a quick heads up that I have proposed a merger of the lists List of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy and List of escort carriers of the Royal Navy. Emoscopes Talk 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom

message: There's a discussion of this subject HERE. I'd appreciate anybody's review and comment. Lou Sander 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AKA's probably in the wrong class 

message: Is there a banner for this wikiproject? 24.126.199.129 08:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talkpage banner?

message: I just created a very modest stub at 3"/50 caliber gun.  I couldn't find an existing article on it, and I've seen it on a lot of WWII vintage ship articles with no link.  Anyway now it's there, so as you go back to improve you favorite ship articles, bear it in mind.  And of course being a stub that article could use attention itself as I'm about done for now.--J Clear 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3"/50 

message: Hi guys, I've compiled a list of World War II British naval radar sets at, oddly enough, List of World War II British naval radar. I've arranged the page so you can pipe links from articles into the relevant sub-section using an anchor (E.g. to link to Type 279, Type 279). I chose the page name carefully after much checking, as it fits in with the general scheme of things in the electronic warfare articles. Emoscopes Talk 11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I'd point out that the link actually is Type 279 - note the space in the anchor. Only mentioning it because I used the example above editting the KGV page and found it didn't work right. Martocticvs 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well spotted that man! my bad. Just to reitterate, this is the format; Type 279 Emoscopes Talk 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of World War II British naval radar 

message: It's customary to add the appropriate national or naval flag to various articles, eg ships. What's best: the current version or one appropriate to the ship's historic period? For example: in WWII, Australian and Canadian warships flew the "white ensign" used by the RN. Their own ensigns came into use in the 1960s - so which is best to use? Other affected nations include Italy, Germany, USA (two more stars so no big deal!). Changes have been made to articles to show current flags (eg, HMS Nabob (D77)), so an agreed convention would help. There also seems no set rule about whether to use ensigns (Royal Navy - white ensign; Dutch Navy - naval jack (a nice distinctive one)), other than one that is distinctively naval. Folks at 137 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say what is best would be to use the correct flag for the time, for e.g Canada, Australia although they used the White Ensign, they had unique jacks (e.g. :Image:Canadian Blue Ensign.svg, wouldn't that be the appropriate flag? Of course things get complicated where a vessel serves through more than one flag period, but I guess we can just put both up to keep everyone happy. I would take issue with the Nabob article as it uses the modern Canadian Jack, but never served under that flag. Emoscopes Talk 08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag should be appropiate for the period. If the period of service covered a change from one flag to another eg Blue Ensign to modern ensign in 1965 then the most recent should take precedence. PS I've edited Nabobs ensign. GraemeLeggett 11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a lot of inconsistency with the use of the "don't tread on me" jack in USN ships articles.  A quick survey of Benjamin Franklin class submarine showed a random mix of the 50 star and DTOM Jacks.  With the Kamfish, the only one that might actually have flow the DTOM jack, having the 50 star one.  Looking at the history of the Carver it appears some of this was due to a bot replacement or a png with an svg jack in March.  Does the ship project have a bot programmer who could set the jack correctly based on decomissioning date?  While there's possibly some exceptions to that rule, it probably would be better than the current situation. --J Clear 14:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kamfish was decomissioned about two months before the DTOM flag went into effect. --J Clear 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current discussion about ensigns and jacks going on, I had a think about this again, and discovered that there wasn't a pre-1801 RN white ensign available - so I created and uploaded one. It's not quite right yet (though it is accurate in terms of overall proportions and colours), but I can fix that later easily enough. Martocticvs 15:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated; thanks Martocticvs! TomTheHand 17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong here, but didn't the Royal Navy use the Blue, White and Red Ensigns for different squadrons (blue, white and red) up until 1864? Are we going to accomodate for this? Emoscopes Talk 22:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they did, but that was a matter of internal organisation really. The colour of a squadron was determined by the rank of admiral commanding it, ie a squadron under a vice admiral of the blue would fly blue ensigns. The red ensign was used by the navy also, but it was at the same time the merchant ensign, which caused some confusion at the time, and it would only do so now as well. The white ensign is the recognised symbol of the RN today, and as it was used in all periods when it was the British Royal Navy, I think it's reasonable to use it as a blanket ensign. Also ships of the time would likely have worn all 3 colours at one point or other in their careers. Martocticvs 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What are people's opinions about the ensign to use for the 1620-1707 period for British ships? Because it is before the Scottish Navy merged with the English Royal Navy, the ensign for any Scottish vesel is clearly , but English ships of the time were using the red, white and blue as in later periods. My personal preference is for , as it was the senior of the three, and is the one seen on paintings of ships of the time most often. The white ensign of the time  you hardly ever (if at all - I can't think of one anyway) see on paintings of ships from the period, although it would be more consistent with the 2 later periods. Martocticvs 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic naval flags

message: Iv'e been looking round this website ( http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/ ) and it has come to my attention that some of the photos here are supplied by external sources and also appear in many books I have. I would be careful about the exact copyright status of these images as they may just be scans out of books. Emoscopes Talk 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the books are using those photos. From the publisher's point of view, free is good, doesn't cut into profit margin. At least four of my own photos uploaded to commons have been reused in print publications, for instance. You can usually detect scans from books by the halftone screen - it leaves a distinctive fuzzy crosshatch pattern across the image. Stan 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Navyphotos.co.uk

message: I was just looking through the RN ships of the line category, and there are a couple of entries labelled as 'French ship xxxxxx'. These were ships that served in the Royal Navy, but were either captured from the French Navy, or captured from the Royal Navy by the French. Seeing as this is a category for RN ships, would it not make more sense for the ships to be listed there under their names in the RN? I'll use the example of the Swiftsure - this was a ship built for the RN, and launched as HMS Swiftsure, serving in the RN for 13 years before being captured by the French, and serving with the French navy for just 4 years, retaining the name Swiftsure. When recaptured she was renamed by the RN. I understand why perhaps it is entered as a French ship, thanks to her participation at Trafalgar under the French flag, but as she was also a British ship under the name for far longer, it makes sense to me that she has a page HMS Swiftsure (1787), which can perhaps redirect to the current version? I'm not sure if redirect pages can have categories though... any thoughts? Martocticvs 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no harm in a ship page having categories for more than 1 navy if it served in both. For a subject as obscure as an 18th century ship of the line, I would go with redirecting to the existing page to simplify matters. Emoscopes Talk 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my thinking was to create the redirect page with the RN category, and remove the RN category from the existing page, that way both the French and RN ships of the line category pages will be accurate... Martocticvs 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea, Iv'e no idea if that works, but I guess you can try! Emoscopes Talk 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it to work - I think that makes things a bit neater overall. Martocticvs 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's may be working if you're driving from the category page to a ship.  However it doesn't work if you get to Swiftsure from some other place, then want to follow up to the category as you'll only see the French category.  Also the article needs the HMS Swiftsure name in bold at the beginning, which brings up the question of the article name.  Which name for the ship was most notable?  Perhaps the article needs a neutral name like just Swiftsure, which could have all applicable categories and still avoid "fouling" the category lists.--J Clear 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe not so good now. That's a very good point. I think these sorts of ships are a little problematic - what would be best is if there was a way to include a page in a category, but not have it show up in the category list - or even better to have it show up on a category page under a different name but I don't think that's possible. In the case of Swiftsure we couldn't just call the page Swiftsure, as there is already something under that name (although it is another ship and so probably doesn't conform to the naming conventions?) Martocticvs 10:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Ship of the line Swiftsure (1787) which could be redirected to from HMS Swiftsure (1787) and French ship Swiftsure ? Emoscopes Talk 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've run into the same issue many times over the course of my categorization work, and I considered the same solution, but I rejected it because you won't be able to navigate from the article to the proper categories.  You can't get from French ship Swiftsure to :Category:Royal Navy ships of the line to look up additional RN ships, which I think you should be able to do. TomTheHand 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it might work better if there was a sub-category under the ships of the line categories - something along the lines of Captured ships of the line - that way the main article could be on a page with a more neutral name under the captured categories of each nation, and the nation-specific redirect pages could carry the correct names for that nation. So HMS Swiftsure (1787) has the RN SOL category, and French ship Swiftsure has the French SOL category, and they both redirect to say, Swiftsure (Royal Navy 1787, France 1801), which would have the captured ships categories. That way you'd still be able to access the SOL categories by going up a level, it just means it involves an extra click... Martocticvs 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a more universal solution would be better.  Often a ship is simply sold to a new navy, not captured.  I'm also not particularly bothered by French ship Swiftsure being categorized under RN Ships of the Line... I just don't see it being a problem, and I think that the "solutions" just add complexity.  This would be a LOT of work for little or no benefit. TomTheHand 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you're right - I've reverted the category changes, but I've left the redirect page as that at least does make sense. Martocticvs 20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and good catch; every ship that served under more than one navy and/or under more than one name should definitely have redirects from each of its names to the primary article.  Those redirects can eventually become starting points for new articles; when a ship has a long history and multiple owners it's often beneficial to split the article up and have separate articles for each owner. TomTheHand 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RN Ships of the line category 

message: It seems I managed to start an almost identical discussion on a different project, here.
This was my thoughts;
I was interested in starting some articles on British naval guns, so took a quick inventory of what is already out there. So far we have;
* 15 inch (381 mm) /42 calibre Mark I naval gun
* 13.5 inch (343 mm) /45 calibre naval gun
* 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun
* 2-pounder gun
Obviously, there seems to be no systematic method for naming articles. The official designation of these guns is;
* BL 15 inch Mark I
* BL 13.5 inch (various marks)
* QF 4.5 inch (various marks), until 1950s, when surviving guns became simply 4.5 inch Mark 5, Mark 6, Mark 8.
* QF 2 pounder (various marks)
I would like to propose some agreed method to name the articles. There is already a fairly systematic naming system for (British) Army guns, e.g Ordnance QF 2 pounder and Ordnance QF 6 pounder, this simply follows the official designation (but drops the gun weight in hundredweights). The Royal Navy designation system is unique as far as I know, I therefore do not think that titles need disambiguated with the word "British".  I also think including the mark is over-specific, as apart from the 15 inch and 16 inch guns, most guns went through a large number of marks. For this reason, and the fact that the Royal Navy does not include it in the official designation, I also do not think the calibre should be included; there are, for instance, L/55 and L/45 guns on the page 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun, which should we use? I personally amn't keen either on including millimetres in the title. These guns were never reported with a metric equivalent, or known by such (the sole exception being the foreign Oerlikon 20 mm (QF 20 mm) and Bofors 40 mm (QF 40 mm)). We do not have a page Oerlikon 20 mm (0.79 inch) cannon, likewise we do not include millimetre and inches in the title of the 2 pounder gun article. It also just makes the title that bit more complicated than it really needs to be. 
My preferred choice for a titling system would therefore be designation, calibre in inches / shell weight in pounds, naval gun, e.g. BL 15 inch naval gun. The only shortcoming I can see with this system is where we have a case where a modern, unrelated weapon, is added into a page for historic guns due to a shared calibre - this is the case with the 4.5 inch (114 mm) gun page. However it would be my intention to move this to a page of it's own anyway.
Emoscopes Talk 01:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do all the guns have an acceptable preceeding designation?  Or are there cases where using it would be inappropriate? Kirill Lokshin 13:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All weapons have a preceding designation, BL or QF (breech loading / quick firing). There are also historic designations such as RML (rifled muzzle loading) which are a bit out of my field of expertise. Mountings also had a separate Mark and designation (e.g. HA, CP, P, BD, UD, HA/LA). I've summarised and attempted to explain all these on the page British ordnance terms in order that I can pipe the abbreviations to the appropriate anchor in there. Emoscopes Talk 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm inclined to go on a systematic system based on official designations. For instance, if we had a page QF 4 inch naval gun and anchors within that e.g #Mark XVI you could pipe a link in to the correct gun, e.g. QF 4 inch Mark XVI. This would work in all cases for British naval guns, as far as I know. Emoscopes Talk 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that that name gets zero google hits, it seems an unlikely contender for the "common name", and so is inconsistent with existing naming guidelines (unless you have better sources on the commonness of that reference than that admittedly crude measure).  You should really either a) pick the most commonly used name (probably "4 inch naval gun", I'm guessing), b) pick the most commonly used name that's not ambiguous (dunno in this case), or c), my least favoured option, propose a naming convention (and I mean an actual naming convention, not just a wikiproject style note) to fix a particular conventions that instantiates and/or overrides NC(CN).  (Probably this is my least favourite option because of the horrendous mess the "US roads" people have just made of such an exercise.)  Alai 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised it gets no hits, I've yet to come across any websites that use the correct designations. A simple look at some contemporary gun manuals, or photographs of the breeches of British naval guns would confirm the "correct" designation. (e.g BL 6 inch Mark XXIII, or from The Gunnery Pocket Book, B.R. 224/45 BL 6 inch Mark XXIII, QF 4 inch Mark XVI). If you aren't keen on keeping the QF or BL in there, that would then require a national disambigation, as my original thought was that the British designations would identify the weapon as British (although probably only to those "in the know", now I think of it). However it is worth noting that the BL 4.7 inch and the QF 4.7 inch gun are quite different pieces. I don't wish to impose a WP naming convention, it seems like such a lot of effort for a relatively specialist subject, and most contrivuting authors are involved in these projects so I feel it is best to keep it here as a style guide. Emoscopes Talk 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that my legal name gets 10 Google hits and my nickname gets 2,800, would that override naming a wiki bio other than my legal name (assuming I were notable, of course)?  Does the RN have any official web sites describing the gun?--J Clear 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you notable, I'd assume your legal name (or some variation on it -- Bill Clinton, not "William Jefferson Clinton", note) would get more hits, and/or that'd you'd be "commonly known" by the nickname.  I admit that google is a very crude test, and in no way definitive:  if you have examples of the "correct" name being used in formal writing and other reference works, that's great.  But the existing NC is based on usage, not on officialness.  Alai 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd favour "British 15 inch naval gun" because then you can also do "US 15 inch naval gun" I would also do "Japanese 40 cm naval gun" rather than 40 cm/45 Type 94 because with the latter at a glance you have no idea what its about. Not to say that the first line of  British 15 inch naval gun wouldm't say Breech Loading 15 inch somewhere in it. GraemeLeggett 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My rationale for including BL / QF etc. is that somewhere down the line we may need to dab between (say) QF and BL 4.7 inch guns or BL and RML 10 inch guns (I know it's unlikely, but it could potentially happen). Would we then have British QF 4.7 inch gun and British BL 4.7 inch gun? Emoscopes Talk 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the British 4.7 inch naval gun would serve as overview or disambiguation page. The QF and BL article names could be created as redirects at any time of course. GraemeLeggett 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points I'd like to make.  First, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) states that In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)."  That's instead of "(nationality adjective) (item)."  Second, while I'm fine with renaming 40 cm/45 Type 94 to include a nationality and "naval gun", it should not be called "Japanese 40 cm naval gun" because it was not a 40 cm gun.  It was a 46 cm gun with a deceptive name.  I think its name needs to be used rather than a description, though I suppose we could put it at "46 cm naval gun of Japan" if we insist on using a description. TomTheHand 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that give us QF 4 inch naval gun of the United Kingdom or QF 4 inch gun of Britian ? Emoscopes Talk 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that'd give us QF 4 inch naval gun of the United Kingdom, which is ridiculously long. *sigh* I understand the reasoning behind the "of (country)" preference, but it does lengthen things.  I don't think we usually need to append "(of country)," though.  To me "QF" implies that the weapon is British; the American equivalent is "RF" for rapid-firing. TomTheHand 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misread the application of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) - its a subset of "Places". Don't forget that RF and QF may imply things for you but not necessarily for the majority. GraemeLeggett 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been coming round to that way of thinking myself, I'm far more against putting "Quick Firing 4 inch naval gun" in than I am against dropping "QF". Still is it not rather obvious that it is part of the designation? So where does that leave us at? Emoscopes Talk 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe I have misread it.  Examples they give of its application are "History of Portugal" and "Wars of Great Britain".  An example from the talk page is "Olympic athletes of Canada."  The reasoning behind it (found on the talk page) applies to all topics.  I guess I don't understand what you mean by 'a subset of "Places"'. TomTheHand 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar discussion 

message: Suggest articles should be named for the name of the gun in the era it was used.  Otherwise we're going to get in to problems with the british 2 pounder and 44 lb. carronades.  My feeling is that metrification doesn't apply to names.  I'm not going to Amazon and look up The Longest Yard (91.44 cm).   Metric values should appear early in the introduction on the gun article.  Suggest using format 5"/38 caliber (127 mm x 4.8 m) in other articles.--J Clear 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, and I apologize for not taking the conversation over here as Bobblewik suggested... I got involved in a bunch of other things and it slipped my mind.  I think articles should be titled based on the name given to the gun by the navy that used it, translated into English if necessary.  However, we need to consult some sources on this to make sure we get the right name.  I think that the 16"/50 Mark 7 was referred to as exactly that, and I don't think the word "caliber" should be used in the title, though it should be used in the article intro.  I think "naval gun" should be in the title, and I'd like to work the nationality in as well.  "United States 16"/50 Mark 7 naval gun" is kind of what I'd like to see. TomTheHand 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, like I say above, noone would think of looking up a 0.79 inch Oerlikon Cannon, it was never known as such, just as (for example) the British BL 15 inch was never known as the BL 381 mm gun. What is to be achieved by metrification of article titles? I still think it's important, for British guns, to keep the designation in there. there are a few cases where this disambiguation may be neccessary (e.g. RML 10 inch or BL 10 inch, QF 6 inch or BL 6 inch, QF 4.7 inch or BL 4.7 inch). Emoscopes Talk 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: see my references above, "inch" is definitely the term used for Royal Navy guns. Emoscopes Talk 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthering the use of the historical name again, take the 4.5 inch / 114 mm gun. It actually has a bore of 4.45 inches, but the Royal Navy seemingly only rounded up to 1 decimal place at the time, so it was known as the 4.5 inch gun. This was carried over with the conversion to metric, and it is reported as the 114 mm gun now, not the 113 mm gun, its true bore. Emoscopes Talk 02:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Don't forget the List of artillery, which measures everything in mm, shows 'em from small to large, and lists the name of the gun, many of 'em in inches. 2) It seems pretty silly (or worse) to me to convert inches to mm in the name of the article. Hey, a 3"/50 was known as a 3"/50, not some hybridized English and metric thing. And a 40mm was known as a 40mm, not some combination of inches and mm. 3) I'm agnostic as to using "inches" or the symbol for inches, but it should be consistent, and there should be redirects. I'm kind of partial to using the symbol in the names, though. 4) Let's not forget that most of these guns are no longer around, so we're not doing anybody any favors by doing metric/English conversions -- use the familiar original names. Lou Sander 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pro using inch in the title, rather than the double apostrophe. In some cases an article may need to be more generic until expanded and so the (made up example) title could be German 175 mm naval gun which ticks most all the boxes under naming conventions. GraemeLeggett 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest that we only include the calibre lengths (in a format yet to be agreed upon) where the calibre is in the designation and the article refers to one specific mark or family of guns. 1/ it obfuscates the article title, and when you are adding wikilinks it's a bugger to try and get complicated article titles correct. 2/ Reitterate my argument that often a series of guns (e.g British 4.5 inch) will have a number of different calibres. Emoscopes Talk 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should only include the length in calibers when it's actually in the official designation of the gun and the article is about that specific gun (not a whole family of the same bore diameter).  I think double apostrophe is actually used in official designations of US guns, so I don't think inch should be used there.  I also don't think "caliber" should be used; I think we should be going for something like '5"/38 naval gun' with a complete description and explanation in the intro. TomTheHand 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO, we should leave "caliber" in the article name. It' an important descriptor of what the "38" refers to. Without it, folks might be mystified. Lou Sander 15:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: From the views expressed above, I would propose that we have some sort of a concensus on the following issues;
# Prefix guns by country Suffix guns by country, in brackets, where appropriate for dab purposes, e.g "" (or Prefix by company where appropriate, e.g. Oerlikon, Bofors, Hispano, Hotchkiss, Skoda)
# Suffix guns by "naval gun" where appropriate, e.g. not for weapons used widely on land / sea / air such as the Oerlikon and Bofors guns
# Report units in the system by which they were officially known, e.g. Imperial/US for British and US weapons, metric for European weapons.
# Report units in the format by which they were officially known, e.g. " for US, inch for British
# Only include calibres where they are part of the gun designation, or to disambiguate from a similar weapon (yet to agree whether we need the word "caliber"), e.g. US 5"/38
# Include any other official designation style for disambiguation, e.g QF or BL prefix for British weapons, Marks where there are separate articles for different weapons
A few examples for illustration;
*United States 5"/38 naval gun
*British QF 4 inch naval gun
*British 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun
*5"/38 naval gun
*QF 4 inch naval gun
*114 mm (4.5 inch) Mark 8 naval gun
*Otobreda 76 mm naval gun
*100 mm naval gun (France)
your thoughts? Emoscopes Talk 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree that there's consensus on the above, except prefixing the article name with the country. I think that to do so would make the articles terribly difficult to find. Redirect pages could fix this, but still the article name would be artificial, IMHO. Lou Sander 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See my above comments about WP:NC(CN), except even moreso.  Arbitrarily prefixing a country name (or an adjective:  you appear to not be consistent about that) is going to make the name less commonly-used, not moreso.  Determine the common name, with some regard to consistency over a related series of guns;  disambiguate by country, or otherwise as further needed, parenthetically.  Bear in mind that articles are supposed to be at names, as they'd be linked to in other articles, not "official designations", and much less, descriptions.  Alai 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how prefixing the country name might be confusing, but at the same time I think it may be useful/necessary for disambiguation.  I... guess maybe they should be left off unless needed to disambiguate between two different countries' guns with similar names. TomTheHand 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are two guns commonly called (let's say) "4 inch naval gun", then "4 inch naval gun (United Kingdom)" and "4 inch naval gun (Somewhere Else)" is clearer as to what's the common name, and what's being added to that specially for disambiguation.  (If it's somewhat commonly called by some unambiguous name, that's less clear-cut.)  It's also somewhat more convenient if you want to link to "" in another article.  But this all supposes what the common name is...  Alai 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, Alai. One of my arguments for adding BL / QF in the first place was to avoid needint to dab by country, but this "optional extra" you suggest should solve any potential problems that arise. Emoscopes Talk 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm in favor of omitting the country unless there is an ambiguity.--J Clear 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: Without wishing to re-ignite a settled debate, has a convention for gun naming been agreed? Is it recorded somewhere? Does any Wiki list reflect this, yet? I'd like to link warship articles to the guns they use and I need some guidance. Folks at 137 11:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun designations

message: Ok, we've discussed this issue several times before but never taken action.  I've always said "I'll do it later."  Well, later is now!
The :Category:Modern ships structure is used to categorize ships that are in service right now.  I think it's a good, useful structure, but many times we've discussed how "Modern ships" isn't really the best title.  It's very vague.  To some it implies that the ships are up-to-date and high-tech, which may or may not be the case.  To others it implies that the ships are of the 20th century ("modern era"), which also may or may not be the case.  We need a new name that really means "ships that are in service right now."  "Contemporary" has been suggested in the past, and I think that's a good one, but it has that relative-ness that I don't like.  Contemporary with what?  I guess when it's not specified one should assume right now, but I'd be more comfortable with a term that specifically means "right now."  My best ideas are "Currently serving ships" and "Present-day ships." If we can come up with some kind of consensus I'll propose the big move over on CFD.
There's another issue as well.  We have a "Cold War ships" cat and a "Modern ships" cat, but nothing to cover the period between the end of the Cold War and now.  If a ship decommissioned in 2003, that's over a decade of post-Cold War service, but she doesn't belong in a "currently serving ships" category.  Anyone have a good name for a category to cover the period between the end of the Cold War and today?  "Post Cold War" is the best I can come up with.  I would probably say that the "Post Cold War" category should only contain ships that left service since 1991, or it'll end up too redundant to "Modern ships".
Again, I apologize for bringing this up for the nth time, but I'll really propose the renames this time once we work this out. TomTheHand 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Active ships? Commissioned ships? A ship doesn't neccesarily need to be in an era category, I don't see the point in inventing one for "recent" ships just because they don't have one, but I see the utility in a category for currently serving ships. Emoscopes Talk 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Active", so unless there's opposition within the next day or so I'll propose the renames using "Active."  It's possible that a different name will be proposed once this is sent over to CFD and that will wind up being used, but as long as we end up with something more accurate than "Modern" I'll be satisfied. TomTheHand 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, probably "Active" is the best way. Concerning ships decommissioned in 1991-2006... Well, if they were built during the Cold War, they can be called Cold War ships. I don't think we have a lot of ships built after 1991 and already decommissioned. But probably this category will become necessary in the future. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with 'Active' as well - just because a ship is de-commissioned doesn't mean it is out of use permanently. Ships are de-commissioned whenever they return to port and their captain goes elsewhere. They may be immediately re-commissioned under a new captain, or it might be several days or weeks before that happens - that could lead to some annoying fiddling around with the category tags to keep things up to date if the cat was called 'Commissioned ships'. Martocticvs 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming "modern ships" categories 

message: I am trying to make the units in the infobox more consistent.
If anyone wants to help, feel free to use my monobook tool User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/general.js. Let me know if you would like help getting it to work. bobblewik 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in infobox 

message: It seems likely that we won't have operational histories of SSBN any time soon.  And there seems to be a mish-mash of ways of dealing with the gap on SSBN articles, from ignoring it to visible remarks in the article like insert 4 years of history here.  Seems worth constructing a template to explain the large history gaps in the articles.  Something like , which could read The operational history of submarine nuclear deterrent patrols has not been released by the US Navy.
Is it worth making the tag more generic or another tag to account for ships with large histoy gaps after the end of their DANFS data?  Frequently there will be history up to the end of the DANFS data and then some decomissioning date from the NVR.  Probably a different template since this is also common.  Like , The operational history of this ship is missing after the last DANFS update, (usual help wikipedia stub line here).
Do both cases represents a special sort of ?  The former might not fall into the "stub" concept as the data simply isn't available.  The latter probably should be considered a stub. --J Clear 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with missing ship history 

message: Being lazy, typing USS Foobar (IX-13) to link to a ship always struck me as twice the work I needed to be doing.  So I did something about it and created .  Now you can type  (e.g. ).  Omit the second parameter to link to ship indexes (e.g ) or such unique vessels as .  I finally got fed up while editing List of Victory ships, so you can see some real examples there.  It should be trivial to copy it for other ship prefixes (e.g. HMS), but I'd like others to take a look at and use it first.  If useful, I'll write it up on the project page. --J Clear 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite ready for prime time as it inserts a break afterward. :(  --J Clear 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK fixed that, bring on the next bug. --J Clear 00:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Thanks. Jinian 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template USS 

message: Joshbaumgartner has proposed a rename of the Ships by navy categories to achieve consistency.  Please use the following link to weigh in on what format should be used ((Navy name) ships or Ships of the (navy name)):
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 25#Ships by Navy categories
As you'll see, I prefer using Ships of (navy name), but will change my vote near the end of the discussion period if there's a majority in favor of (navy name) ships but a lack of clear consensus.  To me, consistency is more valuable than adoption of my preferred scheme; I hope some other folks will feel the same way. TomTheHand 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships by navy rename discussion on CFD 

message: I know I promised I'd do this last week, but the size of the project intimidated me.  I've finally done it.  Please go here and vote:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 27#Modern_ships
Everyone's participation would be appreciated!  It'll only take a moment. TomTheHand 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of modern ships to active ships 

message: Several weeks ago there was some discussion here or in a related place about compiling a list of shipyards. Can anybody help me find it? Lou Sander 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipyards? 

message: Alright, so it's sort of up in the air as to whether we should always use ensigns or use jacks sometimes.  wwoods noted that this was discussed some years ago, but no really definite consensus emerged.  Here are the two sides as I see them:
*Always use ensigns
*Decide whether to use an ensign or a jack depending on which is different from the national flag
**For example, the Royal Navy has a distinct ensign but uses the Union Jack as its jack.  Therefore the ensign should be used.
**On the other hand, the United States Navy uses the US Flag as its ensign, but has a distinct jack .  Therefore the jack should be used.
I believe we should always use ensigns.  Jacks are only flown while the ship is not underway, so I think the ensign is more representative of what would be flying from the ship.  I also believe they are also more recognizable: many people wouldn't recognize the USN's First Naval Jack, and many do not recognize the old jack either.  I also don't believe that it's necessary to require a symbol that is distinct from the national flag.  Confusion between, for example, the USN and the USCG isn't possible; though the USN uses the US flag as its ensign, the Coast Guard has its own distinct ensign. 
I'd really like to achieve some kind of resolution on this issue, because I don't want to proceed with a project to update flags on ship articles without knowing whether to use jacks or ensigns.  I'll cross-post this at the Maritime Military History Task Force to get more input. TomTheHand 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just read through the whole discussion on this, and the previous discussion linked above, and I would say really it makes most sense to use just the ensign. The ensign is the symbol of the navy, because that is the flag chosen for the navy to fly on her ships at sea. The fact that a few ensigns happen to be the same as the national flag shouldn't really enter in to things. The current situation seems to be use the ensign in all cases except where it is the same as the national flag, in which case use the jack just because it looks different - that's not very logical or very... encyclopædical. Consistency is the most important thing really. Martocticvs 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The only problem I see with the blanket "use the ensign" recommendation is Canada. Until the 1960s, some Commonwealth navies (Australia, NZ & Canada) used the RN's white ensign. This lead to a loss of national identity & they all obtained their own ensigns. Canada alone, however, had a distinctive jack - and I've used this recently for Canadian ships. There may be other exceptions. Maybe "use ensigns unless there's a consensus to do otherwise. Otherwise, I agree with TomTheHand & I'd accept the ensign rule. Folks at 137 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if there is a valid reason that will stand up to debate not to use an ensign, then that would probably be ok. But these should be exceptional cases in my opinion, and kept to the absolute minimum. As long as the decision isn't based on what looks nicest, or just looking different from the national flag then its probably a good reason... Martocticvs 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair. Folks at 137 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming one wants to use the ensign or jack appropriate for the era of service, then it is much easier to distinguish between the 48 and 50 star US Navy Jacks than the corresponding ensigns.  If the "Ship country" parameter is filled in, then there is not really a problem with not knowing what the US Jack is.  In fact having the Jack next to "Career USA" should be educational.  Also I believe the US Ensign is used by the US Merchant fleet (if they all haven't reflagged in Liberia).  But I can see the point of the Commonwealth vessels, too.  Sounds like one size doesn't fit all. --J Clear 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unconvinced by the above reasons to use jacks.  I really don't see this need to make sure that ensigns distinguish one country or service from another.  Instead, I think we should focus solely on what is most representative of what would be flying from the ship.  In all cases, this is the ensign. TomTheHand 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of an ensign / jack on the page is as a visual national identifier, is it not? The infobox is neither a jackstaff or ensignstaff in my opinion, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to using one or t'uther. Emoscopes Talk 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Folks at 137 has the right idea here - use the ensign in all cases bar those where confusion is possible. There is no way you could confuse the US flag for any other, so the US ensign should be used for those ships (the appropriate one though - people can click on the little flag to see the full size version after all). For those instances where confusion is possible, such as with commonwealth navies during the war, perhaps further discussion is needed. Should those use the jacks, or should they use the white ensign? Martocticvs 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ensign does not distuguish between US Navy, US Merchant Marine, or US recreational craft and I suspect all other US Government vessels except the USCG and its Auxillary.  On the other hand, the Union Jack is the same for USN and USCG.--J Clear 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Always use ensigns?

message: I always thought a homeport was a town or port, not a base, but this edit would contradict that.  This would tend to support it. Comments? --J Clear 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I was in the USN, my homeport was Mayport, referring to Naval Station Mayport rather than the nearly non-existent, one-stop sign town of Mayport, Florida. Usually, when talking to non-navy folks, I would just say Jacksonville, since most people are not familiar with Mayport. I know it's only anecdotal, so take it however you'd like. --Dual Freq 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I should have referred to question I posed over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Homeport when I saw your edit.  My point being even the Navy lists the homeport by Port, not by Naval Base.  When I dug up that navy list while composing the question, I felt that was enough for the revert.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs.  If the consensus develops for the other way, I'll put it back. --J Clear 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're reading too much into CT vs. Conn. and CA vs. Calif.  I thought those were just database incosistencies and lack of editing. --J Clear 11:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, back in the 1960s, some ships were said to be home ported at Little Creek, VA, which is a base and not a municipality. I've always regarded home port as a sort of unofficial designation, though I don't know why. Back in WWII, the ships in the Pacific seemed to go in and out of all kinds of west coast ports, with none of them really as "home." Lou Sander 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note you did not say you were homeported in Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, but rather Little Creek.  I look on that as the name of the port, even if there is no municipalilty named that.  I guess the question is, is that just conversational shorthand?   You'd think if that were the case, the Navy's homeport list would spell it out.  Outside the navy, the homeport is often painted on the stern.  I have yet to see a facility or dockyard specified.  For instance Titanic's homeport of Liverpool, never been there, but I imagine it has more than one facility.  --J Clear 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeport 

message: Hi. You reverted my edit to USS Georgia (SSGN-729), saying, "(rv - homeports are ports, not bases, see http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/lists/homeport.asp)". I'm not clear on what your objection is; that's a list of Navy facilities, not seaports.  The Navy isn't renting civilian berthing space for its ships. The bases mostly take their names from the cities they're in, but, for instance, there's no town called Little Creek, Virginia.  Towns like Bangor, Washington and Kings Bay, Georgia sort-of exist, but they're not where the ships are really docked, IMO.  
There seems to be a couple of civilian shipyards on the list also, or at least that's the best guess I can make for the intended distinctions between "Groton, CT" & "Groton, Conn.", and "San Diego, CA" & "San Diego, Calif." I couldn't find any other reference to the Texas being in Groton, but "During the first few months of 2006, HALSEY completed her Post Shakedown Availability at BAE Shipyard in San Diego, Calif. In April, HALSEY left the shipyard..."
—wwoods 07:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have referred to question I posed over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Homeport when I saw your edit.  My point being even the Navy lists the homeport by Port, not by Naval Base.  When I dug up that navy list while composing the question, I felt that was enough for the revert.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs.  If the consensus develops for the other way, I'll put it back. --J Clear 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're reading too much into CT vs. Conn. and CA vs. Calif.  I thought those were just database incosistencies and lack of editing. --J Clear 11:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, back in the 1960s, some ships were said to be home ported at Little Creek, VA, which is a base and not a municipality. I've always regarded home port as a sort of unofficial designation, though I don't know why. Back in WWII, the ships in the Pacific seemed to go in and out of all kinds of west coast ports, with none of them really as "home." Lou Sander 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note you did not say you were homeported in Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, but rather Little Creek.  I look on that as the name of the port, even if there is no municipalilty named that.  I guess the question is, is that just conversational shorthand?   You'd think if that were the case, the Navy's homeport list would spell it out.  Outside the navy, the homeport is often painted on the stern.  I have yet to see a facility or dockyard specified.  For instance Titanic's homeport of Liverpool, never been there, but I imagine it has more than one facility.  --J Clear 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeports 

message: A user is reverting edits to ship articles. Please look at Rebecca's contributions list at least back to 23 September. I believe the original edits improve the articles and the reverts make the articles worse. I do not want to undo the reverts myself but other editors may wish to do so. bobblewik 10:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User reverting ship edits 

message: I've been working on the Joseph Hazelwood article and I've run into a bit of a snag. The NTSB report for the Exxon Valdez incident states that he was the Assistant Master when first assigned to Valdez. I'm not familiar with merchant marine and civil sailing roles/ranks so I was wondering if anyone could clarify this as it raised a question during the GA process. I have only two guesses, one, an A and B crew like SSBN's have with two separate crews and one submarine since tankers only make money while hauling product and would be underway more than a single crew could tolerate. My second theory would be like a CO / XO relationship, although I think the XO role is filled by First mate. If anyone knows, or has a net source I can use in the article, I would appreciate it. Feel free to add it to the article, here or on Talk:Joseph Hazelwood. Thanks. --Dual Freq 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master vs Assistant Master 

message: There are a few ships (sometimes famous ones, sometimes not) whose page titles are not consistent with all the others. I'll just pick HMS Victory as an example. She's a very famous ship, but surely the page title should be 'HMS Victory (1765)' - with a redirect from the current page as that's what people would probably type in. Is this something we should perhaps look at altering? Martocticvs 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The (1765) would be to disambiguate Victory from earlier and later (although that is not relevant in this case) ships called Victory. As you say, Victory is a very famous ship, and for that reason HMS Victory links there, there is no need to disambiguate it from other Victorys which are far more obscure, that is done on the page HMS Victory (disambiguation). Emoscopes Talk 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to be consistent with WP:D, where there is an agreed primary meaning to a dab topic, the "primary article" will have no disambiguation addons in its title.  The first line of such article is a link to the dab page similar to Victory's.  Consider these exceptional exceptions as proving the rule.  --J Clear 23:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship page title inconsitencies 

message: Hello. I found Hoy (boat) and Hoy (ship) while randomnly selecting articles from the :Category:Articles to be merged backlog. I assume that they are duplicate articles and need to be merged (with a redirect from one to the other). I do not know, however, which article should be the main article and which article should be the redirect. Please consider reading and researching the two articles and then discussing the proposed merger at this link. Thank you. --Iamunknown 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think boat would be the preferred term in this case. Because the subject is from the Age of Sail, the term 'ship' should be used for vessels that are ship-rigged - obviously a hoy was not, so boat is a much better term. Martocticvs 23:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion conerning the merge of duplicate articles 

message: Hi . I found a page which sheds considerable light on the whole seal vs. crest issue. Here is the description for USS MAhan. This description makes clear distinctions between the shield, which is the actual shield shown in the coat of arms; the crest, which is the shield accompanied by devices above and below; and the seal, which the entire image, acompanied by a thick blue border with the ship's name and registry number included. hope this is helpful. thanks. --Sm8900 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new link

message: Please would people keep an eye on this page. User:Mathieu121 keeps re-adding comments that portray the building of future Russian aircraft carriers as a virtual certainty, when it's actually quite unlikely. As the experts here will know, post Soviet military shipbuilding has been a slow, on and off, delayed process and completed ships have usually been corvettes, rather than aircraft carriers.
Cheers
Buckshot06 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk]]

message: I find it a bad idea to include inline text at the end of ship articles. (Example:)
 See HMS Pinafore for other ships of this name.
#It is better to use templates to create a standard look.
#I think the link to the disambiguation page should be at the top of the article.
I created a new disambiguation template  to be placed at the top of articles. -- Petri Krohn 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that it makes more sense to have the disamb line at the top of the page, and have been doing that with the articles I've been writing/editing. But there's already a template for that, , which gives For other ships with the same name, see HMS Pinafore. Martocticvs 11:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  produces the same output, (without typing errors). -- Petri Krohn 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake! That's great then, I'll start using that one in future articles. Martocticvs 21:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Otherships 

message: Template:Infobox warship, which you can see in action at User:Rama/FS template and Le Fantasque (1935).
It could be possible to make it even more general, by adding cargo space or sailing surface.
Comments, praises, hits in the face welcome as usual. Rama 12:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that we need a replacement for Template:Infobox Ship.  If there are things about it that are inadequate, we should edit it instead. TomTheHand 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, there it was... >_< Rama 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, sorry :-) This page might be helpful for you.  I'm certainly not opposed to making edits to Infobox Ship, as you seem to have some good ideas and a good handle on editing templates. TomTheHand 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox warship template 

message: Could you guys weigh in on this?  I'm generally opposed to deletion of categories that fit into our categorization structure, so I voted against, but even if you disagree with me I think the CFD would benefit from WP:SHIPS's input. TomTheHand 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having edited articles on several of the 20th century Greek naval ships this week, I have to say that the Hellenic Navy is a complete mess.  Some ships are in the non-standard :Category:Hellenic Navy ships category while others are in the also non-standard :Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy.  While I could be mistaken, I think they should all be under the correct sub-category of :Category:Naval ships of Greece.  Once we get the categories fixed, we should also try to standardize the ship names.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I didn't realize at all that there were two Hellenic Navy categories.  That is a heck of a mess. TomTheHand 13:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I got this CFD (WWI cruisers) confused with the current CFD (see the Hellenic navy CFD below), so yeah, it is pretty confusing all the way around.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD for Greek era categories 

message: Do we have a notice to place on article discussion pages to indicate that the article in question is supported by WP:SHIPS? If not, it might be worthwile creating one... Martocticvs 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at one . It's very basic, no bells and whistles at the moment, but we can start including it right away.  I did go beyond the traditional one image to show we're not just about warships.  I've got USS Constitution and RMS Queen Mary 2.  I intentionally didn't include a modern warship.  I must admit there might be a slight personal bias in choosing one of the images. :)  Actually I'd consider simple line drawings of similar ships as a better choice, but don't have any handy.  Comment away, but please start using it.--J Clear 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! I'll start using it on all new article edits. Martocticvs 16:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article discussion page notice 

message: A CFD has been proposed for the merging of :Category:Hellenic Navy ships and :Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy.  While we have had issues trying to achieve consensus on how to standardize country/naval category names, it seams to me that the de facto standard is to use the Cathead naval ships of template (used in over 30 "Naval ships of country-x" categories), which would be :Category:Naval ships of Greece.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD on Hellenic Navy ships/Ships of the Hellenic Navy 

message: A while back we had a discussion about drawing up a sort of useful list of shipbuilders for the project page so that we were all singing from the same hymnsheet, that discussion was here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive04#Shipbuilders (now archived). 
User:Harlsbottom produced this useful start point, here. Further to this, for my own use, I have compiled a list of British shipbuilders - User:Emoscopes/shipyards. At the moment this is just a reference for myself, so it isn't formatted. It is arranged alphabetically for the main, but look out, some are named out-of-order as they are chronological after the original name of the yard! Yes, this may seem silly, but it makes sense to me for what I am using it for at the moment. Regardless, please do feel free to make use of it. 
I think we were pretty much agreed on that general format for inclusion in articles, that is;
:first instance in article;  full company name, location e.g. John I. Thornycroft & Company, Woolston 
:subsequent instances; truncated name e.g just Thornycroft
It would be a useful addition to this project if we could start an official project list of yards, in an agreed format, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling again on this one. Emoscopes Talk 12:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the GlobalSecurity.org Shipyard facilities page been pointed out here? US shipyards only, but it might be useful. --Dual Freq 13:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a main space List in the making.  Hey, it's no worse a topic than some of the Lists out there.  --J Clear 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's another good source:U.S. Shipbuilding History. --Dual Freq 22:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad this topic came up again. I was looking for it, but couldn't find it. I recently got a map of the U.S. with the names and locations of every U.S. shipyard that was active during WWII. I scanned it in from a WWII-era government report. If anybody would like to take on the task of documenting this information, I'll be happy to send them an electronic copy of the map. (Anybody else can have one, too.) Let me know if you're interested. Lou Sander 01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list I drew up above is purely a blue-link one, i.e what is available on WP (i've tried to ensure all the major builders are). If other contributors are happy to go for a complete list of yards in their area of interest i'd be more than happy to draw it up from Lenton and Janes and various other sources for a more complete representation of shipbuilders. Emoscopes Talk 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Emoscopes and Dual Freq, very nice work.  I apologise for only starting the list, but University and a general dissatisfaction with Wikipedia imposed.  I'm still very interested in seeing a proper list constructed someday.  We really need to start a specific taskforce for something like this, or at least a proper committment.  As to the depressing nature of de-industrialisation, see the old Vickers Armstrong Works in Barrow-in-Furness.  Truly depressing, and most of it's still there!  --Harlsbottom 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipbuilders revisited 

message: Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we need a few new ship articles written: HMS Hinchinbroke (1779), HMS Albemarle (1779) and HMS Foudroyant (1798), any RN fans interested?--J Clear 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do about the Foudroyant some time this week if possible. The other two ships I think I have a fair bit of info on as well so I'll look into those also. Martocticvs 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out I have loads of info on all 3 so I'm quite happy to tackle those. Foudroyant's article will be completed by the end of the week most likely, with the others to follow soon after. Martocticvs 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson]]

message: Dmitri Donskoi, a circa 1904 Russian cruiser mentioned in Japanese cruiser Akashi currently redirects to the ship's 14th century namesake. I couldn't find a rule for what the ship should be named. Note that there is also a modern submarine with this name, currently only described in the Typhoon class article. Rmhermen 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be Russian cruiser Dmitri Donskoi as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Emoscopes Talk 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected that but didn't know if that would apply to Imperial Russian ships. Rmhermen 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-revolution Russian ships

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: While this is a useful template, in my opinion it's just too big. Therefore, I've taken a lead from some guys over on the AFV wikiproject and made a collapsing template;
Comments?
Emoscopes Talk 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that myself, I amn't too hot with the code for this, but I'll give it a bash and see what comes out. Emoscopes Talk 17:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about now? I can't seem to get the alignment right, ideally it should be central both vertically and horizontally. If anyone wants to play, please feel free to (I can always revert back to a lastgood) Emoscopes Talk 17:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well it's all centred up and pretty, and a big improvement on what was there before so I took the liberty of replacing it, and adding it to the pages of active ships as I feel it is now small enough to go there without causing too much ugliness. Emoscopes Talk 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks about right to me I think. I saw the ultra-collapsed version (forgot to post a comment, sorry), and I thought that overall it probably would have been a bit lost on the page like that, so going back to this form I think was the right way to go. All centred up it looks great. Martocticvs 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'm sure it could be improved, but I'm also sure that it's a lot better than what preceded it! It is a lot more pertinent now I've put it on all the pages of commissioned ships, one can now navigate quite easily around the entire RN fleet :) Emoscopes Talk 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Royal Navy ships]]

message: Please would people keep an eye on this page. User:Mathieu121 keeps re-adding comments that portray the building of future Russian aircraft carriers as a virtual certainty, when it's actually quite unlikely. As the experts here will know, post Soviet military shipbuilding has been a slow, on and off, delayed process and completed ships have usually been corvettes, rather than aircraft carriers. Cheers Buckshot06 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just copied this one out from the archive. I noticed that this Mathieu121 chap has just made another edit, removing any suggestion that the construction of this ship is not going to happen. I reverted it to your last version and left a request for him to post on the discussion page the reasoning behind his edits in the edit summary. Martocticvs 23:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk]] 

message: I'd like to make a suggestion about index pages. How about creating rediretions for ship index pages with "(ship index)" attached, similar to "(disambiguation)" redirect pages for links to disambiguation pages? Then links intentionally linking to ship indices can link via these redirects, which would help sort out links which should link to specific ships. --Kusunose 06:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how this helps sorting.  At least for the current collection of links, someone would still have to determine which are intentionally directed to the "ship index", which is essentially the same task as determining which are inadvertant and should be dab'd to a particular ship article.  You've increased the work since you not only have to fix links that need to be dab'd, but need to change links that are legitimately to the "ship index". Going forward, lazy or uninformed editors are still going to link to USS Foobar in both cases.  Is there really that big a problem out there? --J Clear 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index Pages 

message: I just wanted to share my own personal Happy Dance that we (not the royal "we", but the collective "we") have completed all of the USN destroyers. Obviously this was the work of the community and it feels good to see the list of nearly 1000 ships -- all with pretty blue links. Woohoo! Jinian 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job, in addition to that, only 3 destroyer leaders, USS Worden (DLG-18), USS England (DLG-22) and USS Halsey (DLG-23) remain and the whole page will be blue. FYI, commons:Category:Leahy class cruiser has images of all 3. --Dual Freq 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well done, all hands. —wwoods 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second the Well Done (or Bravo Zulu, as it is sometimes said). A little housekeeping might be in order. All or part of the very long list of USN destroyers would benefit by being shown in two (or three?) columns, as are many of the ships shown HERE. I don't know how to do it efficiently myself, but maybe somebody else could bear a hand. Lou Sander 15:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed List of United States Navy cruisers has ships listed by hull number and by name in another column, maybe that could be duplicated. Is there a preferred standard for list pages? --Dual Freq 15:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, that page is almost all bluelinks as well, with the exception of two early cruisers and three or four more WWII-era cancelled ships (some so obscure they're not mentioned in the page on the class - it may be worth checking those names were actually assigned to them) Shimgray | talk | 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I redirected the canceled ships to their ship index pages and made sure that it included cancellation dates and info from DANFS. Also,   :Image:USS Cincinnati (C-7).jpg.   :Image:USS Detroit (C-10) circa 1890s.jpg or :Image:USS Detroit (C-10) at anchor.jpg. That should help with the last two. Last two done. --Dual Freq 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, dance over. On to destroyer escorts. No rest for the wicked... Jinian 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyers - done 

message: I'm working on a list of USCG cutters, User:Dual Freq/List of United States Coast Guard ships, and I was wondering what to name it when copying to mainspace. I'm considering, List of United States Coast Guard ships or List of United States Coast Guard cutters. United States Coast Guard Cutter says a Cutter is a United States Coast Guard vessel 65 feet in length or greater, having adequate accommodations for crew to live on board. Ships would seem to match naming convention like List of United States Navy ships, but cutters would limit it to larger ships that may be noteworthy enough to have an article about. Opinions? Is it even worthy of mainspace, after some work? --Dual Freq 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I've heard no comments, I'm leaning towards List of United States Coast Guard cutters. --Dual Freq 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, draft is done, for the most part, maybe I should have named the article List of United States Coast Guard redlinks. --Dual Freq 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! you've obviously put in a lot of hard work and research to the list :) Emoscopes Talk 21:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Ships or Cutters? 

message: Is there a reason for the dual entry of Bangladeshi Navy on the ensign-page? Both the naval ensign and the civil ensign are shown. --Sir48 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just a mistake by the looks of it, i have ammended Emoscopes Talk 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual entry: Bangladeshi Navy 

message: I believe the article Mutiny on the Bounty could really do with looking at. Being quite a well known historical event in the history of the Royal Navy, it seems a bit disappointing that the article is the subject of a long and ongoing discussion as to whether it is HMS or HMAV Bounty. Additionally it doesnt follow the standards for articles about specific ships. (HMS Bounty redirects to Mutiny on the Bounty, should it not be the other way around and should the article not? Does anyone have any comments on this? JonEastham 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HMS Bounty should definitely be a ship or dab page imho. Even just so as it can be put into the correct categories. Emoscopes Talk 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (although from everything I have ever read on the subject, there is no question that she should be correctly listed as HMAV Bounty). The mutiny was a significant event, and so warrants its own article, but the ship itself was significant because of that event, and so also warrants its own article. Martocticvs 00:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightyho, HMS Bounty should redirect to HMAV Bounty, which should be put in the appropriate categories (even just as a  and with appropriate links to Mutiny on the Bounty. Emoscopes Talk 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Bounty 

message: I am new to this WikiProject.  I was wondering if there was a template for the user page similar to what WPMILHIST has.  If it is out there, I haven't been able to find it. --JAYMEDINC 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  <-- This is what your after 8o) JonEastham 12:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Ships User Template

message: USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[USS Wisconsin (BB-64)]]

message: User:Cerejota has made a speedy move of Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK) with no consultation whatsoever! How do we go about reversing this situation, which, despite being in order to adhere to WP policy, breaks any number of other policies in doing so. I have asked the user concerned to join the debate here. Please voice your opinions and support! Emoscopes
:It appears that someone's moved it back pending further discussion. TomTheHand 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, as bad ideas go, moving Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK) is one heck of a dozy.  Can you imagine how much chaos would be caused if we started renaming articles not because they had similar English names, but because the articles might have a similar translated name in any one of the 39,491 languages and dialects used on the planet?!?  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there are other Royal Navies around, the Swedish one springs to mind - but when you say the Royal Navy, everyone the world over (provided they have at least some knowledge of European countries) knows that it is Britain's navy you refer to. Royal Navy (UK) should exist for sure, but it should only be a redirect to Royal Navy. Martocticvs 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your help is needed

message: People might be interested to know that a new (fourth) edition of Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy has been published this month - Chatham Publishing, . Seems to be a one-volume edition, with a significant amount of the content of the old two-volume version - they've dropped some of the minor vessels which used to be in vol. 2, but kept "all the genuine fighting ships - like the numbered Coastal Forces craft" (sayeth Amazon). Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colledge 

message: Can anyone think of a good reason why the Courageux article is so named, and not French ship Courageux? She was notable for being taken by the Bellona, and nothing else really. Martocticvs 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at some of the cats with French ships (:Category:Aircraft carriers of the French Navy, :Category:World War II submarines of France, etc.), it would appear that mis-named articles are not an uncommon problem.  You can (probably) safely move the articles to their proper names as you run into them (provided, of course, that you follow the ship naming conventions).  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It probably helps that a) "Courageux" isn't likely to be used for anything else in English other than as a proper noun, and b) she also served in the RN under that name (she's down here, 1799, for example), so excess disambiguation may just confuse matters. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courageux 

message: Per discussions with User:Emoscopes, User:Carom, and User:TomTheHand, a Royal Navy (disambiguation) page has been created.  Please take a look at the page and fill in anything I missed.  Also, at the suggestion of JonEastham, I added a  dab link to the top of each Royal Navy page (however I have no doubt that fiefdom issues will see the link reverted off of half the articles within a week). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was wrong.  Of the 18 articles I added the dab link to, it was only reverted off of two: Royal Thai Navy and Swedish Navy. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Royal Navy (disambiguation)]] created 

message: Is there any WP:Ships guidance on trivia / fiction sections in articles? I recently looked at USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) and removed some non-notable cartoon trivia, but it has been re-added. Is there any reason to include fictional or trivial cartoon information about ships that were not even completed? --Dual Freq 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that because the articles are so short, and because the ships were featured prominently in one of the most popular anime series ever, a brief note like the one inserted by  [here] is appropriate.  I agree that the original text included inappopriate original research but I think the shortened one is fine. TomTheHand 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have missed the boat on the 26 episode series mentioned, either that or I was on a boat that didn't have normal TV at that time. Either way I'd never heard of the cartoon in question. I also failed to see the prominence of a single episode appearance regardless of the series. I guess what is there now doesn't offend me terribly. Maybe I'm just not a fan of trivia sections in general. I know the WP:Aircraft folks have a pseudo-policy for inclusion of trivia limiting video games that include the aircraft and other details. I just wondered if there was a similar negotiated / discussed guideline for those sections here. --Dual Freq 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sort of on the fence about it, but I think the Evangelion reference is way more notable than this gem from USS Iowa (BB-61): "Tom Clancy is seen wearing the baseball cap of the Iowa in his photograph gracing the back of certain of his paperback novels." As far as I know Evangelion has never aired on American TV, as it's rather bloody and contains adult themes.  You'd have to be into anime to have seen it, but if you're into anime you've almost certainly seen it—it's the first thing someone shows you after you caught Cowboy Bebop late night on the Cartoon Network and kinda liked it. TomTheHand 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That is pretty obscure. (Checking the Clancy books I have, he isn't wearing a hat in any of them) Assuming it is true, it certainly isn't worth wasting a sentence on. That's the kind of stuff that gets added to pop culture / trivia sections, next thing you know there will be a dozen bullet points detailing each scene the ship was in for a couple frames of a movie. I think the WP:A/C guideline is that it has to be a central character in the movie/show like the F-14 is to Top Gun, F-16 to Iron Eagle or USS Missouri to Under Siege. The aircraft problem is a bit different since folks want to add every console game that includes the F-14 to the F-14 article. I think they decided just to list flight sims specifically focusing on the aircraft to keep the pop culture sections smaller. --Dual Freq 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, Evagelion did in fact air in America earlier this year, as part of the anime block for Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim lineup. It was shortly after the episode aired that the first apperance of the evegelion reference with regards to the last two Iowa class battleships popped up on the page. The notability of the event is that the battleships became the 1st non-evongelion machines to have directly destroyed an angel; if you see the anime series you know that this instance and the instance in which Iruel overtakes nerv HQ are the only two times in the series when angels are not destroyed by evas. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: In response to a suggestion of Emoscopes, I've created a sub page of WP:SHIP.  It's probably in the wrong place, but it's up now anyway.  The important thing is to attempt to differentiate between the various yards and companies, as when some people think of the company, they believe that the name and the history automatically applies to their shipyard, not realising that there are often multiple yards.  Anyone who can add to it, please do so.  If the format is a bit difficult, then say so and I'll change it.  I only did it as a personal experiment during the summer which has languished for some time.  --Harlsbottom 11:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not create sub pages with titles like that. But in any case it looked like a perfectly good start for an article in (Main) so I have moved it to List of shipbuilders and shipyards. -- RHaworth 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sorting that out.  --Harlsbottom 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of shipbuilders and shipyards]] 

message: What are the notability criteria for any given ship's inclusion?  Are ships subject to general WP:N, or are they all considered inherently notable (as it is the case with geographic locations), or do you folks have some other specific criteria?
I am particularly interested whether a cargo ship described at Talk:Sinegorye#Discussion about the recent "copyed/expa" edit would qualify for a separate article.  Assistance would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that every military ship is notable enough to warrant it's own article.  I am particularly interested to hear what others have to say.  Very good question. --JAYMEDINC 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I just want to emphasize that the ship in question is not a military one; it's just a cargo ship.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability criteria

message: I'd like to ask some folks from here to head over to Template:Groundbreaking submarines and comment on the issue of what flag should be placed by Drebbel's submarine: a Dutch flag, because Drebbel was Dutch, an English flag, because he was living in England as a patron of the throne and built his submarine for the Royal Navy, or both flags together. TomTheHand 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Drebbel's submarine on [[Template:Groundbreaking submarines]] 

message: If you've put links to Navsource for a Gator ship, they will porbably break in 2007.  See message about a site reorg here http://www.navsource.org/archives/phibidx.htm.  --J Clear 16:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navsource Amphib shuffle 

message: This caught me by surprise, so I wanted to give everyone else in the project a heads-up as we often use these templates in our articles.  The visual formatting in the various dablink templates was recently moved to CSS.  If you have not bypassed your cache, dablinks like  at the top of Royal Australian Navy or  at the top of Royal Navy will appear to have lost their indent and italic text.  See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disambig link formatting for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads-up on dablink formatting change 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Just to inform that a new maritime history project has started for Australia - Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian maritime history -SatuSuro 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there wikipedia guidelines on what to do when articles "belong" to multiple projects and the projects have conflicting formatting and content guidelines?  Also which project tag takes precedence on a Talk page?  I see many Wikiproject Ships articles overlapping with MILHIST, this new group, and I'm sure there are others.  --J Clear 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies a very tricky issue -  with such a specific task but particularly open sounding title - perhaps this project and the military projects need to review exactly what they are doing?  in the Australian context - Australian Military History, Australian History and the Australian Military History do speak to each other and attempt to remain under the umbrellea of the Australian project - and its guidelines and assessment criteria - so as to avoid problems whereever possible SatuSuro 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and as to precedence - it depends on the projects to actually nut this out on the project talk pages - have a vote - and initiate policy that will clarify this - I do not know pf any other way - thats why we're sort of ok in the Australian sense- we have a parent project with some very well heeled admins watching! SatuSuro 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Australian maritime history (was: Greetings/New Years and otherwise)