Talk:List of United States Navy ships

message: There are now actual, separate articles for Mare Island, California and Mare Island Naval Shipyard. I put a note on Wikipedia:Cleanup about someone needing to go through all those links and making sure they point to the correct place (many just link to "Mare Island", which is now a redirect to Mare Island, CA).  Thanks!  Have a grand old time. :-)   ...  Elf | Talk 21:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I've been using launch dates rather than commissioning dates for ships built specifically for the Navy, because there is little doubt about when a ship has been physically launched, while commissioning dates are uncertain for the earliest, and there may not have been an actual commissioning.  Year of acquisition for purchased ships seems good - look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships and sneak it in there somewhere. Stan 19:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mare Island links

message: This is a list of letters of the alphabet that have been completed in the list from the source book series Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. It is an aide memoire to keep track of what needs to be done to the rest of the page. The following letters have been completed:
* A - B
* D - H (DANFS & NVR)
* Q
* X
* Z
David Newton 14:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of completed letters in DANFS 

message: In official government documents there is no " - " in the ship classification name, (LPD 17, not LPD-17), though it seems to be common everywhere else.  I think that the name should be changed to reflect the Navy's naming convention
:Wikipedia is not the Navy. We're not even the United States. Why should we follow a convention that even the USN isn't consistent on? More justification for this will be needed before I'm convinced such a large scale and meaningless change is undertaken. Jinian 23:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
:It seems to be a recent change, 1990s perhaps, so the generic "most common" rule will favor hyphens for another couple decades. :-) I've always wondered about the rationale for the change, seems unusually pointless. Stan the cynical ex-defense-contractor suspects that somebody made a mistake in database software programming, and it was cheaper to declare a change of convention than to fix the software... Stan 23:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No " - " in ship name 

message: I removed your edit where you inserted the USS Wyoming (1859) link on the main page.  This front page of this list consists of all current ships arranged by letter.  When there is no current ships by a particular letter we have show historical ones.  Please see List_of_all_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy%2C_W for Wyoming and all other ships of the USN.  Malo 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert edit by 143.250.2.102 

message: I reverted your recent page edits because the USS Zephyr no longer belongs to the US Navy.  Instead, as of October 2004, it was transferred unto the USCG.  Hence the reason it is not active in the Navy.  Check out it's Navsource page if you need references.  Malo 17:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv edits by 143.250.2.101 On 9/28/2005 

message: Malo brings up a point in his previous comment.  Do we want to include Coast Guard ships in the list of US Navy ships?  During wartime, including WW II, administrative control of the Coast Guard was transferred to the Navy.  So, in essence, Coast Guard ships were Navy ships at this time, even though they maintained their prefix USCGC rather than having USS.  In the alphabetical listings, there are several Coast Guard ships listed that are not Navy ships.  There are also ships with Navy hull numbers that were manned by the Coast Guard during the war, including frigates and transports, that are listed.
Should we have another page listing Coast Guard ships?  In the column on the right (with the Don't Tread On Me flag at the top), do we want to have another entry for Coast Guard ships?  If not, where can we list the Coast Guard ships?
147.240.236.9 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The belated answer to this in case others are wondering is that List of United States Coast Guard cutters is covering Coast Guard ships. The issue at hand in what list a ship belongs to is in what service owned the ship. The Coast Guard still owned their ships during WWII despite being under control of the US Navy. Likewise, a US Navy ship operated by a Coast Guard crew was still owned by the US Navy. Further to this issue is Military Sealift Command which operates ships owned by the US Navy therefore are also listed as US Navy ships. One project I've been working on since December 2007 is to go through all of the lists of US Navy ships and fix the list integrity. As of now, I've completed through G. --Brad (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Guard ships 

message: In the cases were a US Navy ship was later renamed, sold to another country, lend-lease, canceled, or what have you, please use the redirect option rather than changing the names on this list or by piping the links to another ship. I've made about 35 changes to the A list alone, and while most of them were updates to reflect new DANFS information, about 10 - 15 were to correct links to HMS xxx and others. --Brad (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Navy ships only / list integrity.  

message: I heard this long ago and I'm not sure if it is true or not: The navy names their ships according to a standard.  According to this standard, Battleships are named after States, Aircraft Carriers after Presidents, etc.  The rest I forget, it was something like minesweepers=volcanos, rivers=something else, big cities = something else, etc.
Does anyone know if this is true? if so what is the logic for naming ships???
205.160.23.2 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: United States ship naming conventions might help. --Brad (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Standards =

message: Recently, while I was in Seattle, I took a picture of a tugboat from the Seattle-Bremerton Ferry.  Today I looked up that tug on Wikipedia which search took me to List of United States Navy ships: D–F §De.  There I found the entry for the tugboat:
*  ()
Since YT-804 is a red link I clicked on the USS Defiant blue link and much to my surprise, ended up on a page about the fictional starship USS Defiant (NX-74205) from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine et al.
That caused me to look at the List's underlying construction.  Under the hood, the USS Defiant (YT-804) entry looks like this:
*  ()
It looks like the intent was to have a link to a shiplist, disambiguation, or redirect page followed by links to individual ship pages identified by their hull number or launch-year disambiguators.  That works as long as there is a shiplist page, disambiguation page, or a redirect page. Doesn't work in this case.
The quick and dirty fix (remembering that the quick is now, the dirty is forever) for this entry is:
* USS Defiant ()
or
* 
Frankly, I like the latter since I can think of no reason why this list (or any of the other list should be linking to redirect pages.  And the look would be similar:
As it is now:
*  (, , , /)
*  ()
*  (/)
As it might be:
*  (, , , /)
* 
*  (/)
For consistency, this implies that all names in the list that refer to only one ship, must be changed—delete link to redirect, delete extraneous parentheses, edit the  template.
Not forgetting the main question: Can someone explain why the individual lists are constructed the way they are constructed?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These lists are approaching 10 years in age so whatever the original purpose of the layout might have been is unknown. But it still works well so I don't see any reasons to make any major changes. In the case of  the page was hijacked by star trek fans and should be reclaimed by the ships project. The star trek ship article should be renamed appropriately to something like USS Defiant (starship) or similar. Then all will be ok for making USS Defiant a dab page showing the real ship and the fictional ship. Brad (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain why the individual lists are constructed the way they are constructed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of United States Navy ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118095120/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/oldclass.htm to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/oldclass.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of United States Navy ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630220303/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/quick/INDEX.HTM to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/quick/INDEX.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040810082250/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/lists/homeport.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/lists/homeport.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress