Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 5

message: Could you guys weigh in on this?  I'm of the opinion that since coordinates are easily put at the top right corner of the article, above all article content, like on , it's redundant to place coordinates in the infobox. TomTheHand 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with that. How many ships are there for which this would be relevant anyway? Only a very small proportion of the total number of ship articles we have here, that's for certain, so I think it makes far more sense to use the existing abilities. Martocticvs 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think it's good to have coordinates for shipwrecks or museum ships, but there's no need to clutter up the infobox with it when the coordinate template already supports putting the coordinates in the page header. TomTheHand 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's put the coordinates in the infobox on HMS Victory.  I saw that before I saw this debate, and wasn't too happy with it.  It's a snowball of information in those infoboxes anyway and adding the coordinates messes them up unnecessarily.  Since the Wikipedia convention is that coordinates go in the header, I really can't see why on earth we'd want to start adding them to the ship infoboxes.  Despite the fact he'd like to add them to the Empire State Building box, they simply aren't there.  See Stonehenge, the Terracotta Army, the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.  Why should ships be different?  It's unnecessary, unappealing and against established Wikipedia practice.  If no one objects, I'm going to remove it.  Benea 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the guy who added them to the infobox put them on HMS Victory as an example.  At least he didn't go adding them to dozens of ships; I can't blame him for doing one as a proof of concept.  I want to remove it from both HMS Victory and the infobox, but I wanted to hear from a couple of other people about it first.  I'll go ahead and remove them. TomTheHand 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Benea, could you please cite the assertion that "the Wikipedia convention is that coordinates go in the header"?  Certainly I've seen them in the header (not to mention added a few), but I've also seen them in other infoboxes (e.g. ).  ISTR there was a very contentious debate about putting anything up on the title bar when it first started.  It seems to me that the coordinates go right along with the status/fate of the ship when it has ceased to move.  We set the status to museum, sunk or wrecked, why not include the coords there?  I hesitate to bring this up here, but it's probably a lot more useful than some of the things that are in our infobox to a casual reader.  Obviously it would need to be hidden if not supplied.  Either way we go, we should be using  (note the d at the end), as that has the code that ties into Google maps and others.--J Clear 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that it works so well in the header that there's no reason to put it anywhere else.  It's clean and presents information in a consistent way.  I generally support infoboxes being as clean and simple as possible.  If this were a discussion between putting coordinates in the infobox versus putting them in the main article text, I'd support the infobox solution, but given that  already supports putting them in the article header, and that feature is already widely used around Wikipedia, I prefer sticking them there. TomTheHand 02:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Tom on this one.  Perhaps I should have said 'conventional' rather than 'convention', as I'm not sure of any official ruling on the matter.  You're right, bridge infoboxes sometimes do, as in Golden Gate Bridge and London Bridge, as well as a few others.  But unless there are more I've missed, this seems more of an exception.  For examples of other fixed locations, see the examples I've listed above, as well as Houses of Parliament, Moscow Kremlin, etc.  Also, for articles without infoboxes, the co-ordinates are there in the header, as with White House, Panama Canal and Mount Snowdon, so this is where people would go for it.  If there was no where else to put them, then fine, but I would agree they are fine in the header.  The 'casual reader' can look there and see if there are any co-ordinates immediately on opening the page, without having to go through an infobox of varying length and detail, so see if they are there or not.  Benea 18:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mount Snowdon is an interesting example.  That infobox has a coordinate parameter which was ignored.  Yet the non-universal Ordnance Survey grid was supplied in the infobox and a  added near the bottom of the article.  Personally I think the whole question cries out for a consensus at a much higher level than WP:SHIPS.  It may have already been discussed over on pages associated with , but my mental DB is reindexing after a few IPAs.  --J Clear 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates in ship infoboxes 

message: I just found this recently and while I'll help clean it up, I have no idea where to start, or if it should be merged to something else. The article's rather scrambled up, but contains some good information. The history section mentions only the Skeena River and Terrace, British Columbia, which I (as a British Columbian) find amusing. However, I think the Mississippi (among other rivers) might also have something to contribute to the history of riverboats :).CindyBotalk 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Riverboat]]

message: When spiffing up old articles, please check the www.navsource.org URL(s) that many have.  Navsource was reorganized and all the old links end up, after a long delay, at the top page.  Thanks.  --J Clear 03:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing out the change. I have updated the article I look after (Landing Craft Support). --Lee Begg 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check Navsource links 

message: Some time ago, I had mentioned that I'd like to create some sort of a page where we can advertise tasks and projects.  I whipped something up here but I haven't linked it from the main page yet.  Obviously it's pretty U.S.-centric because that's my area of interest, but we can add a variety of stuff.  It's not pretty, and it's only got a handful of things on it, but I was thinking that it might be a helpful resource for new members and might also be a good way to get us all cooperating on tasks.  What do you guys think? TomTheHand 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You can help!" page 

message: A WP:SHIPS contributing editor, TomStar81(Talk, Contribs), has been nominated for adminship.  If you wish to contribute to this process, there is a Guide. 
I have attempted to remain withing the spirit of WP:CANVAS by keeping this to a single, non-disruptive, neutral announcement.  I've also intentionally omitted a direct link to the nom, to encourage reading about the process.  Please review WP:CANVAS before responding here or spreading the news further. --J Clear 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TomStar81 nominated for Admin 

message: I've been applying the ship class naming conventions to US Navy blimps (eg: B class blimp), but another user insists that these should be hyphenated as, for example B-class blimp. The example here about nominative and adjectival usage doesn't seem to be very helpful - the two examples look identical to me! Any guidance would be appreciated. --Rlandmann 08:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that help? —wwoods 19:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah! Exactly what I was looking for - many thanks. Perhaps the example on the naming convention page could be expanded along similar lines? --Rlandmann 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see the last topic on this page, New Addition - 'Class style', where we're discussing your change.  The U.S. Navy italicizes class names, and so I believe we should continue to do so. TomTheHand 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Class naming conventions

message: Which ensign would be best to place in an infobox of a replica ship? The ensign from the period the replica is active or the period when the ship the replica was based on was active? This question pertains to US Brig Niagara (replica). --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of changing it to the 1812 flag she flies.  I cite  as precedent, also recall something about using "most famous period".  --J Clear 14:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct ensign for a replica ship 

message: I'm wondering about this flag:  -- it is labeled as the Naval Ensign of Azerbaijan here on the 'pedia; however, according to Flags of the World it is nether an ensign, nor a jack, but a "ceremonial flag". Do you have more information or another source? Thanks, --Himasaram 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval ensign of Azerbaijan 

message: Can someone write an article on the Russian destroyer Lieutenant Zatsarenniy, which blew up on a German mine in 1917? Its shipwreck was located a couple of days ago by Russian divers on the bottom of the Black Sea near the Snake Island. KNewman 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the page "Leytenant Zatsarenni", with the information I had at hand. However, I won't have access to any good sources until the next time I'm going to the military academy library, which will be in a couple of weeks time. --MoRsE 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieutenant Zatsarenniy

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#3rd opinion request Viv Hamilton 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it sounds like a good use of talk space!  If enough of us are willing to take a turn when we have time in reviewing the list and adding as appropriate links, the load on any one won't be too bad.  The other advantage of this approach is that it will advertise there is source material for stub or missing articles to a wider range of editors.  Viv Hamilton 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MaritimeQuest Links 

message: I've created a navbox template for ship types, following discussion on Talk:List of shipwrecks#List cleanup.  I've included all the unique ship and boat types, I can find articles for - I would appreciate people taking a look and improving it Viv Hamilton 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship types template 

message: Hello! I am a new member, drawn in by association from WP:Shipwrecks. I've received helpful advice on the first few ship articles I've written, especially from User:TomTheHand and User:J_Clear. I still feel like a bit of a rookie when it comes to WP:SHIPS conventions though, so I present to you my latest:  USCGC Icarus (WPC-110). If anyone could take the time to tell me how it might be improved, I would appreciate it. Maralia 02:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New member 

message: Can our article, List of world's largest wooden ships be part of your project and get a rating etc?--Filll 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely!  I've rated it "B" class and "High" importance; if anyone disagrees, please feel free to modify. TomTheHand 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for membership 

message: I am aware of three abbreviations in common use for the knot.  In alphabetical order these are kn, kt and kts. Are there any others? Thunderbird2 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knot (speed) is the link I think you meant! Emoscopes Talk 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nm/h (although I think I just made that one up! Emoscopes Talk 18:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, good one.  I personally prefer kt, and dislike kts... if you saw someone use "kms" for kilometers, you'd replace it on sight.  "kt" seems to be used most often by navies, as far as I know. TomTheHand 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. Like my old physics teacher used to say; "there are no secs in physics".  (if you don't get it, the answer is only "s") Emoscopes Talk 01:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "kn" is specified in the US Chart 1 (1972) and in Canada's Chart 1 (1996) - those are the copies I have on hand.  The Canadian one also lists "kns" for plural (ugh!).  BIPM shows kn on its web site but states "There is no internationally agreed symbol, but the symbol kn is commonly used."  Too bad, I kinda like kt too. Michael Daly 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. If "knot" is sometimes (inappropriately by landlubbers) used as a measure of distance, can "square knot" be similarly used as a measure of area? Would the abbreviation be sqkn? Lou Sander 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abbreviation for [[knot (speed)|knot]] 

message: In Template:Infobox Class etc., there is a problem with #000080 as the choice of background colour. That is, when there is a wikilink on this colour, it is nearly impossible to read, as it uses a similar shade of dark blue. This clearly violates Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color, regarding contrast. I checked at Wikipedia:Infobox colours, but this seems to be dead for the time being. I would suggest that we either lighten up the shade of blue, or, what I find more appealing, is choose a shade of dark grey for our infoboxes etc. For me, grey is the colour of navies and warships, and would be instantly recognizable. The current choice's only relation is only that the colour is called navy!
As these templates are included on hundreds, if not 1000+ pages, I wanted to start a discussion here before I made any changes that would be so obvious. Emoscopes Talk 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parent country appears next to the flag, in a navy-coloured area. Emoscopes Talk 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there a conversion to using the MILHIST color scheme at one point?  Or was that only for individual ship infoboxes, and not for class ones? Kirill 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template colour

message: Does this project have a userbox?
I looked but could not find one. --Thefrood 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:User ships Emoscopes Talk 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Bit of a debate going on at this article's talk page over what to do with it.  Some users are pointing out ships they don't think should be on there, etc.  I've been meaning to look at this since in my opinion it's a very long list for the casual reader.  My hope would be to have the information divided up and parcelled out into smaller articles:
*A list of Frigates, sloops, etc that carried fewer than 58 guns. 
*A list of ships of the line that carried more than this number. 
*A list of what are considered to be battleships (at this page), with necessary overlap, i.e. for those that would consider HMS Warrior (1860) and her ilk a battleship. 
*Potentially another list for the section currently titled "Great ships, carracks and galleons (–1640)"
This to me would have the advantage of being more concise in each case, more acurately label ships, and help the reader, if his interest is in Napoleonic era ships of the line rather than World War II battleships, go to where they want to be, as well as preventing loss of information, if as some want, we end up taking the frigates/sloops/etc out.  Some people are disagreeing, saying that the current way is better than this proposal, so I thought I'd open it up really and see what people thought.  I remember a while back we debated what defined a battleship and what made a ship of the line, and settled for the development of turret warfare as a defining feature.  Are people still happy with this?  Any further suggestions about how to move forward with this?  Kind regards, Benea 07:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for this, I see little merit including "modern" steam battleships in with galleons or 5th rate ships. What I would suggest is that we make the current page something of an index / disambiguation page for RN battleships, with each of the separate pages a child of that. Emoscopes Talk 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of battleships of the Royal Navy]] 

message: Could some knowledgeable person(s) please see if there's enough information out there to create an article for the Soviet MV Sovetskaya Latviya (see Soviet Latvia for the details I know). Many thanks! — Zalktis 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now created a rather amateurish article for MV Sovetskaya Latviya. Please improve upon it! — Zalktis 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Request - ''Sovetskaya Latviya'' 

message: Just to summarize were we were.  We currently have Template:Infobox Ship which is widely used but biased towards military vessels.  We also have Template:Infobox_Commercial_Ship, Template:Infobox Ferry and Template:WAFerry (the latter has a merge tag on it).    None of the last 3 are advertised on WP:Ships.  Commercial ships is used for 4 articles, Ferry for 19 and WAFerry 29.  I didn't accurately count the links to Template:Infobox Ship, but it looks like ~2,500.  I suspect there are minor field differences which have caused people to want their own template in the commercial ships!  Personally I would favour a single template if we can agree on main fields but allow flexibility, especially because as an archaeologist I have odd needs that the rest of you probably don't care about - like construction (for things like clinker built, hybrid hull, copper/muntz clad), and I don't want to have to come up with extra templates to fit different special needs throughout history.  Masts and funnels are good for me because that's what you spot on old drawings (or even photos), but funnels could be included in propulsion and perhaps we should have (optional) sailplan which would encompass masts (or perhaps it could default to propulsion, unless sailplan was entered?).  I think I agree with you Tom that just speed is Ok - one can enter top and service in it, and capacity can be used for different things, like cargo, passengers, vehicles.  Commercial ships has homeport and Ferry has Port of registry - I know homeport works for military ships but for civil ships, shouldn't it be port of registry, so could it default to homeport unless you specify registry?    In the case of the above debate about tonnage and displacement, since the military people prefer displacement and the civil people need to have tonnage, can we have a field that defaults to one, unless the other is entered?  I leave it to the experts to decide which way - or perhaps pragmatically it will have to default to displacement, simply because ~2,500 military ship articles already use it and assume it will say displacement. Viv Hamilton 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor clearly-defined separate templates for different ship types, even if they are no more than modification of the same basic template.  They would be easier to use and more accessible to new users.  Ship articles are among the first articles worked on by some users (often youthful fans) and they should have clear direction on what template to use.  A lengthy, "one size fits all" template with a myriad of choices would be confusing and lead to errors.  (I have made over a hundred corrections of errors on "displacement" vs. "tonnage" (volume) so the problem is real; if there is a default to displacement those errors will continue.)  The interest of most of the members of this project appears to be naval vessels, but there are other users, less organized and experienced, whose interests lie elsewhere.  And perhaps Wikipedia will eventually have users committed to creating articles on tankers, other bulk carriers, containers ships, and other types of merchant vessels.  Let's make it easy for them to do so.  Kablammo 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why the three-part Template:Infobox Ship Begin, Template:Infobox Ship Career and Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics can't simply be expanded to include the fields that are wanted for the ship types mentioned, and then the appropriate fields listed out in a new section of Template:Infobox Ship Example so the full list isn't unnecessarily copied each time... Making entirely new templates with minimal differences doesn't seem to me to be the logical solution, at any rate. Martocticvs 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a template adapted for passenger vessels at Template:Infobox Commercial Ship.  Notice was posted on this project talk page asking for comments on that proposal before the template was finalized. I am glad that interest is now being shown in templates for merchant ships, and if there is a better solution than the commercial vessel template already in place, I'm not opposed to it. But I prefer the commercial ship template as it uses terminology and criteria better suited to modern passenger vessels (crew vice complement, tonnage instead of displacement; laid down and completed dates), without the military slant of the general template.  This slant leads to confusion; for example, ship articles using a general template which add the passenger capacity to the complement field as the latter term is not generally understood. (See RMS Titanic, RMS Queen Mary, and MS Freedom of the Seas for a few examples of this misunderstanding.)  There also are passenger ship pages where the infobox ship template used does not allow for a tonnage field. (See SS Canberra and try to modify displacement to tonnage.) Kablammo 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, but fields that you require can easily be added, that was my point. The way those templates are set up is such that no field is compulsory, so you can pick out the relevant ones for the type of ship in question. The benefit of making it all call from one (well, three, but one if you see what I mean) template of course is that any changes regarding style need only be made once, and it ensures that there is consistency across all ship articles. Martocticvs 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but why make each user make those selections?  If for example a new user wants to create an article on a new cruise ship, why not provide that user with a ready-made template for such a vessel, where the field selections have already been made?  The commercial vessel template is just that.  Is there any substantive difference between those articles which use the new commercial vessel template, and how that article would look if a general template was used with appropriate field selections?  Kablammo 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that it is probably easier for users if they have a specific template for their type of vessel - but presumably templates can themselves be built out of templates to maintain commonality?  I missed Template:Infobox Ship Begin, Template:Infobox Ship Career and Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics when listing templates - why don't we list these on the tools and resources page?  Please also see my previous comment, that if the templates are specific, the minority interests aren't necessarily served Viv Hamilton 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll visit , which explains how to use the Begin/Image/Career/Characteristics set of templates, you'll see that it lists different sets of copy-and-paste code for different types of ships.  A cruise-ship-specific set of code can be created, and a tanker-specific set, and so on, and they would all use the same underlying set of templates.  There's no need for each user to think hard about which fields should go on this specific ship.  Someone needs to come up with a list of fields just once and add it to the list.  From then on, you just go to Infobox Ship Example, click on the type of ship you're dealing with, copy, and paste.  You've got exactly the fields you need. TomTheHand 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One major thing that bugs me about the three-part ship infobox is that it currently places a lot of emphasis in the nationality of the ship, which is of neglible importance for a civilian ship these days. Plus it's possible (even common) for a ship to have several careers under different companies but the same flag (or several flags during career for one company). It would be very nice to have a civilian-adapted infobox where instead of the country appearing as the header of the career box, it would be the company displayed there. It would be really nice if next to it the flag of the shipping company in question could be displayed, but making the flags for all companies needed would of course be a huge job. -- Kjet 07:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And some more thoughts... even if the operating company would be displayed in place of the nation, the infobox should still have a separate field for owner as that is not always the same thing as the operator visible to the public (chartered ships, marketing corporations). Additionally a civilian ship infobox would need fields not only for passenger capacity but also passenger berths, number of cabins, car capacity and freight capacity. And ice class. -- Kjet 08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd forgotten about funnels being added for cosmetic reasons.  Sail plan performance is more than propulsion of course, it determines navigation capable too - how close to the wind you can sail - as for sail plan thumbnails, a set of images already exist - see Sail plan.  I don't know how feasible it would be to get them to automatically add. Viv Hamilton 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it would be very easy possible. At least, I know it can be done! I would be happy to do the drawing if I was given the right technical advice, and I'm sure there's enough template knowledge in this project to get the coding done. Emoscopes Talk 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you draw me a gun so I can shoot myself in the head before I get any more bright ideas? :) Maralia 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Something to consider here is that the terminology has changed considerably with time so logically historical vessels should use historical terms and modern vessels should use modern terms. Jmvolc 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent point. Applying modern terms, and even modern understanding of technologies these terms define, is often wholly inappropriate when applied to ships of any prior era. I concur that only contemporary terms, and their definitions, should be married to ships from that same precise period. five 02:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that significant progress has been made.  If base templates can be adapted for use by merchant ships then suggested standard templates specific to vessel types can be provided.  Words like "capacity" and "tonnage" do allow for flexibility; "complement" apparently is confusing and should be replaced with "crew", at least for merchant ships. Other changes may also be appropriate.  Is someone willing to work on some standard templates?  Should the current infobox commericial ship template be replaced (for passenger vessels) by a modification of the base templates mentioned above? Kablammo 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a consensus for basing everything on  and using Template:Infobox Ship Example to create particular examples for each type of ship?  If so would it be appropriate to move the discussion on particular templates to the Template:Infobox Ship Example talk page, and debate fields that are missing from the 'full code' (e.g. sailplan), and alternative field names e.g. port of registry, on ? Viv Hamilton 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *If someone is willing to make the selections and modifications necessary on the base template to provide a set template for a ship type (e.g, passenger vessel) of equal or greater utility than an existing template (infobox commercial ship), with terminology appropriate to the vessel type, I support it.  But if such a passenger ship template uses words like complement instead of crew and launch instead of completion date for modern passenger ships, we are better off with what we have.   Kablammo 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys.  I was on vacation last week, and then it took a few days for me to settle in enough to get back on Wikipedia.  Let's go ahead and add any necessary fields to the general purpose ship infobox, and let's have that discussion on Template talk:Infobox Ship Example.  I'll put together some notes there to kick off the discussion. TomTheHand 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Choices of infobox

message: Sorry to be a pedant, but for me, funnels don't form part of the machinery / propulsion, particularly when we often find funnels added for cosmetic reasons as a way to hide unsightly exhaust piping. That's not that I'm against putting it in there, somewhere, I don't see why there shouldn't be a line for funnels. For older ships, funnels were often used as an identifying feature, and the Royal Navy was in the habit of grouping its classes of early torpedo boats and destroyers by simply counting up the funnels. If someone is dead against this in their article, they simply needn't fill in that line in their infobox.
As for sailplan, that to me is another interesting addition. What would be really good, is if we could agree on a set of thumbnails, and if you put, say "square rig" into the infobox, a nice little thumbnail silhouette would come up and would automatically link into the square rig page. I think the sailplan is particularly pertinent as it was the "engines" of sailing ships and determined the vessels' performance Emoscopes Talk 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd forgotten about funnels being added for cosmetic reasons.  Sail plan performance is more than propulsion of course, it determines navigation capable too - how close to the wind you can sail - as for sail plan thumbnails, a set of images already exist - see Sail plan.  I don't know how feasible it would be to get them to automatically add. Viv Hamilton 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it would be very easy possible. At least, I know it can be done! I would be happy to do the drawing if I was given the right technical advice, and I'm sure there's enough template knowledge in this project to get the coding done. Emoscopes Talk 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you draw me a gun so I can shoot myself in the head before I get any more bright ideas? :) Maralia 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funnels & sails

message: 1) Would it possible to index the various discussions by topic.  There seems to be a lot of text that covers multiple subjects making it difficult to agree with one topic and not another. Jmvolc 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to consider here is that the terminology has changed considerably with time so logically historical vessels should use historical terms and modern vessels should use modern terms. Jmvolc 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent point. Applying modern terms, and even modern understanding of technologies these terms define, is often wholly inappropriate when applied to ships of any prior era. I concur that only contemporary terms, and their definitions, should be married to ships from that same precise period. five 02:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that significant progress has been made.  If base templates can be adapted for use by merchant ships then suggested standard templates specific to vessel types can be provided.  Words like "capacity" and "tonnage" do allow for flexibility; "complement" apparently is confusing and should be replaced with "crew", at least for merchant ships. Other changes may also be appropriate.  Is someone willing to work on some standard templates?  Should the current infobox commericial ship template be replaced (for passenger vessels) by a modification of the base templates mentioned above? Kablammo 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a consensus for basing everything on  and using Template:Infobox Ship Example to create particular examples for each type of ship?  If so would it be appropriate to move the discussion on particular templates to the Template:Infobox Ship Example talk page, and debate fields that are missing from the 'full code' (e.g. sailplan), and alternative field names e.g. port of registry, on ? Viv Hamilton 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *If someone is willing to make the selections and modifications necessary on the base template to provide a set template for a ship type (e.g, passenger vessel) of equal or greater utility than an existing template (infobox commercial ship), with terminology appropriate to the vessel type, I support it.  But if such a passenger ship template uses words like complement instead of crew and launch instead of completion date for modern passenger ships, we are better off with what we have.   Kablammo 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys.  I was on vacation last week, and then it took a few days for me to settle in enough to get back on Wikipedia.  Let's go ahead and add any necessary fields to the general purpose ship infobox, and let's have that discussion on Template talk:Infobox Ship Example.  I'll put together some notes there to kick off the discussion. TomTheHand 13:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: - Abbreviation for ship's speed in knots :  Officially it is Vk but this will not be understood outside of a small technical circle.  In all other references (Including SNAME & RINA) that I have checked it is not abbreviated.  I would suggest doing the same as of course "knot" is short for "nautical mile per hour".  The potential for confusion is high and we are talking about saving 2 letters. Jmvolc 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorized Comments

message: Is there a style guide for ship articles? See Talk:Christopher Columbus (whaleback) where the she/it question has been raised (I wrote it as "she" but there has been some attempt to change it to "it") ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is... a pretty hot topic.  See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she").  I think most WP:SHIPS members probably favor "she" (I hope I'm not making an offensive generalization here).  I would regard this issue as being similar to issues of British English vs. American English, or BC/AD vs. BCE/CE.  I would say that it should be dealt with in a similar fashion to those above issues.  If there is a compelling reason to use she or it in a particular context, then use she or it as appropriate.  If there is no reason why in this specific case one is better than the other, the article should follow the style of the first person who contributed substantially to it.  That is, as you took the time to write this article, and you used "she", nobody should change it to "it". TomTheHand 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For posterity's sake, I present a previous discussion within WP:Ships - referring to ships as feminine - that was neither inflated with invented offenses against womankind nor derailed by the ridiculous assertion that npov precludes assigning gender to an inanimate object. Maralia 06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Guide? 

message: Hi guys, I've merged the Supertankers page into the Petroleum tankers page and given it a pretty thorough kicking adding in history and so on. Please visit and give it s further kicking. Cheers - Jimmec 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petroleum Tankers page

message: I've been busily working away at drafting project improvement stuff per my post above, and just realized I haven't actually posted anything here since my big wishlist. So, first of all - thanks for all the responses; it's encouraging to see so much interest. I am in the process of creating templates for a navigational sidebar, a todo list, an invitation to join the project, and a welcome to new participants. I'll have bits and pieces to show soon. Maralia 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project improvement 

message: * 26 August Double-hulled tanker (PROD by User:Jimmec; "...a large tanker ship used for transporting liquids (usually petroleum).")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 03:45, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
:I have replaced the prod with a merge from double-hulled tanker to petroleum tanker. Maralia 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: Ertuğrul is an article both on the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, and a 19th-century vessel named for him centuries after his death.  Is there anyone who can split this into two articles and add to the meager text on the ship?  Kablammo 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Stubbed: Turkish frigate Ertuğrul. —wwoods 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any experts on Ottoman navy? 

message: I have revised the main project page. The prime improvement is the new sidebar, which contains links to all project documentation, a new task list, and our article assessment statistics. In light of the sidebar's functionality - and also in the hopes of making the project page less daunting to a new user - I have seriously cut down the amount of text on the main page.
The sidebar template is located at . It can be transcluded on your User page, but don't subst it, or it won't update. A quick summary of the sidebar (with entirely new items/pages in bold text):
*Project documentation largely consists of links to our pre-existing documentation. There is one new page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Outreach - which lists the new  and  templates I have created.
*"Things you can do" is a new task list that is (manually) populated off the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tasks. You can also reach the tasks page by clicking the 'edit' button on the sidebar. The task list is a central place for us to 'advertise' tasks we have come across, so that anyone can complete them. One aspect of the tasks is completely new: I have created a bot feed of new ship-related articles that is updated daily at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles.
*Article statistics is just a transclusion of our assessment statistics.
Please share your comments. I'd like to get a feel for what you all think before I tear into the documentation pages themselves (guidelines, sources, etc). Maralia 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work!  The new main page looks great, and I love the well organized sidebar!  My only concern would be with the Consolidate item on the sidebar.  Wikipedia's category structure is -on its best days- rather like an M. C. Escher drawing, and for WikiProject Ships it is often nigh-incomprehensible.  "Fixing" , , and  is a very complicated and oft mind-numbing issue.  This particular case with three different patrol boat categories is, at its core, most likely an outgrowth of our "Ship of country" vs. "Ship of navy" category mess.  , , myself, and a few others have been trying -with varying degrees of success- to get this straightened out for years.  However rather than re-hash it all here, you may wish to go back in the talk archives and read our discussions on the topic.  The most recent conversation on the issue was: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive04#Further discussion on categorization of Category:Ships by country.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. The language of that particular item is a mistake; I meant to list it as 'review for consolidation', like the item directly below it. However, this particular case seems to be just a difference in terminology - vessel vs craft vs boat - which should not be controversial. Maralia 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cleanup?  Maintenance?  You mean we do those sorts of things?!?  Someone once said that trying to organize Wikipedians is like trying to herd cats ...  :-)  --Kralizec! (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry no time to actually do anything at the moment, but when I do have time, I'll be able to go straight to your nice new tasks list, so I'm sure it will be more productive.  The main page is a big improvement Viv Hamilton 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see we have a pair of smart-asses on our hands ;) The merge for Naval ram/Ram (ship)/Ramming is done too. Who knew Christmas came twice a year? Parsecboy 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: I am interested in many maritime and boating issues that seem to be outside the real scope of this project or the Wikiproject Maritime Trades.  For example, small pleasure-craft and sailing topics (other than sailing during the Age of Sail) don't really belong under either, at least not intuitively.  Also articles about authors who have written about the nautical topics, other than a few like Nathaniel Bowditch, don't belong or wouldn't seem to very important to either project.  It seems that there is a part of WikiProject Transport and Wikiproject Ships, there is an area which has to do with the sea and boats which falls through the cracks.  I've made a suggestion at Portal:Nautical that there may be need for a Nautical Project to pick up everything that this project and Maritime Trades don't cover.  Intention is not to step on any toes here, only to short of do some housekeeping in the areas that the two major projects in the area aren't interested much in - but plenty of other people are.  Please make any comments at Portal:Nautical to keep them together.  I haven't formally proposed the project yet, I wanted to gauge the opinions of other parties first and hopefully find some with interest before posting the proposal.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on a suggested new Parent Project? 

message: Can anyone help flesh out Ship decommissioning with info on how it is handled in countries other than the US? Maralia 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship decommissioning 

message: I have taken the liberty of moving this general discussion about unit links to wp:mosnum. There are many interested people there. Lightmouse 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking the first use of common units 

message: As per discussion with User:Rif Winfield, User:TomTheHand and the author, User:Martocticvs, I have nominated :Category:Magnanime class ships of the line for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 7.  Thoughts and feelings welcome on this at the link! ta ta for now.  Benea 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the db-author tag and it has since been deleted. Martocticvs 10:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Magnanime class ships of the line]] nominated for deletion 

message: Nearly half of the articles marked for WP:SHIPS have never been assessed or assigned importance. I'm not talking about review for B class or better - nearly 3,000 ship articles have never been assessed at all. Embarrassing when it's something core to the project like, say, brigantine.
First-level assessment is EASY. You don't even have to actually read the article.
# Click here and pick an article.
# Importance:
#* top - ship type articles such as carrack, galleon.
#* high - ship class articles such as Glorious class aircraft carrier.
#* mid - most every article about an individual ship goes here.
#* low - rarely used; for low notability ships, particularly private vessels or ships that had very short careers.
# Class:
#* B - only if WP:MILHIST has assessed it as such.
#* start - decent breadth of information.
#* stub - has a stub template and/or very little info.
That's all there is to it. If everyone could assess 5 or 10 articles a day in the process of their other work here, it would help us identify our most important articles, so we can focus improvement where it is most needed. It would take 5 minutes out of your day. Maralia 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a few this morning, and probably will do a few more throughout the day. Parsecboy 12:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I have been working on this for months ... and kind of feared I would still be working on it when I turned 90 in a mere 56 years.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've jumped onboard and I'm doing a few.-MBK004 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That few ended up being over 50 (I'm leaning more towards 75) before I logged off to have dinner.-MBK004 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just did another 50 or so.-MBK004 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And used quite the apropos nautical term to do so ;) Parsecboy 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work, MBK. I've done about 30 so far today, and may end up doing more now. Parsecboy 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys. Something I should've mentioned: if an individual ship is so notable that it's very likely people access the article all the time (i.e. Titanic, Dreadnought, Arizona, Valdez, Lusitania), I usually bump it up to high or top importance. Maralia 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we originally discussed importance, we said that an importance rating two or more levels different from the guideline required discussion, but I think considering how much work we have ahead of us we should suspend that for now.  I do think that we should be careful about assigning importance ratings two or more levels from the guideline; as Maralia says, Titanic, Dreadnought, Arizona, Valdez, and Lusitania are extremely important and merit "Top" importance ratings but for the most part a one-level difference should be adequate. TomTheHand 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been through a load today... I shall try and remember to pick of a few each day now. Martocticvs 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure the list of articles like that is disturbingly long... how often does the bot run to automatically tag articles? Martocticvs 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a plea 

message: Re the above questions concerning dinghies and AYRS, is the "Ships" project related to "Category:Sailing"? GilesW 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Sailing 

message: In the course of this assessment drive, I'd be grateful if people could put a  template onto the talk pages of articles which lack infoboxes.  That'll make it easy to see what needs an infobox added and take care of it.  Thanks, all! TomTheHand 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about articles using old versions of infoboxes? eg as used in HMS Indomitable (92) - is it worth flagging those up for replacement/standardisation? Martocticvs 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, tomorrow I may create a "this article uses an obsolete infobox" template, but for now I think it's most important to put this template on articles that have no infoboxes whatsoever.  There's so many boxless articles that I feel like it's more important to focus on them than to mark everything with a suboptimal infobox setup.  Unless the infobox on the article is truly godawful... in which case, template it ;-)  Please template ship class articles that lack an infobox as well (using Ship infobox request; no need to create separate ship and class templates). TomTheHand 01:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using {{tl|Ship infobox request}} 

message: Seeing as how ya'll are in the middle of a big tagging and assessment drive I was curious I have could ask you guys to tag any ship article you find using bullet points in the body with ? In this manner we can locate articles like USS Intrepid (CV-11), which need to be rewritten to undo the bullet pointing. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big favor to ask

message: Does this  make any sense to you?
:The USS Pueblo, an electronic spy ship, was seized by North Korean forces in 1968. The USS Pueblo (that was seized) was the third U.S. naval ship to bear that name. The first USS Pueblo, came into being when "Pueblo" was chosen to be the name of the former USS Colorado. This small undistinguished, cruiser was the second US ship to carry that name. In 1916, the US Navy wanted the name Colorado for a much bigger and more important ship, so it renamed the old third rate cruiser after the small Colorado town of Pueblo.
:But the renamed USS Colorado, (USS Pueblo) was the second U.S. warship to bear that state's name. The first USS Colorado was the flag ship of the five ship squadron, whose Marines invaded Kanghwa Island, Korea, in 1871.
It originally ended with this additional sentence:
:Koreans, being a people who appreciate genealogy, might chuckle at the long-term "revenge" exacted in 1968, by the North Koreans, for the various doings of the US navy, way back in 1871. The names of the vessels involved just happen to be linked in this round about way.
. . .which almost made it make sense, but then my brain exploded. Can anyone make this comprehensible? Maralia 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can anyone tell me 

message: Hi.
I've propsed that we merge Template:Infobox Class into Template:Infobox Ship Class. There seems very little difference between the 2. The former has a few extra parameters in the class overview that I find appealing, and I'd like to simply add them in with the latter. The title bars and the placing of the images are slightly difference, but apart from thatI really don't see why we need them both.
Have your say here.
Emoscopes Talk 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge infoboxes

message: 's post above about marking articles for  got me wondering ...  Does anyone else tag articles for multiple projects?  Granted that most of us here are also members of WikiProject Military history and/or its Maritime warfare task force, but I mean tagging articles for all relevant projects.  When it comes to our current assessment drive, I for one am not a very speedy worker because I always feel want to add a helping hand to other projects (I like to think that I am being efficient or a completest, but my wife says I am a textbook example of anal retentive).
One example would be my recent assessment of Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1914).  Rather than just do a quick 30 second evaluation for WP:SHIPS, I also marked it for the Russian and Soviet, maritime warfare, World War I, and World War II task forces of  as well as , , , and .
While I do not generally do anything fancy like try to assess an article's importance for other projects ... it certainly takes a bit of time to identify any applicable WikiProjects, locate their banners, and track down the specific banner syntax used by each project.  Even if all I do is copy-and-paste their banner tags to a talk page and fill in the class field, at least then they will give the article an assessment for their particular project on the next assessment drive.
Does anyone else do this?  --Kralizec! (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder you thought you'd still be working on it when you're 90! Really, though, I try to do that too normally, but with this assessment project I'm not going out of my way - if I know another project's banner syntax or can guess it in one try I'll add it, otherwise I'm just moving on. Maralia 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging for multiple projects? 

message: This is a 1792 open sailing vessel which crossed the Pacific (westward) as part of the Vancouver Expedition.  It is probably also an early example of the use of "flags of convenience". Any help from 18th century fans or Canadian historians would be greatly appreciated.Pustelnik 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help wanted to expand Fenis and St. Joseph

message: An editor has written a new article on Bollard Pull that starts out by defining it as "a value that allows to compare the power of tugboats." While I imagine it's most useful for tugboats, I've seen bollard pull figures reported for a wide variety of ships, and I suspect the article may need to address a wider scope of use. It also needs to be renamed lower case, have references added, etc. - anyone care to take a crack at it? Maralia 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the title and added a few categories and templates. Still needs more work though. Emoscopes Talk 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bollard pull 

message: On the 'tasks' box is the item "Fix sort order & naming in Category:Tank landing ships" Was there a discussion/consensus as to what direction needed to be taken? If not, should the ships be listed completely numerically regardless of name (if any), or what? — Bellhalla 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  Unfortunately I do not have an answer.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task list question... 

message: The most amusing article picked up in the new articles feed: Benea's Tirpitz (pig). Maralia 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth hasn't this been made into a film?  It's a tale of heroism, daring, a pig triumphing over adversity, with elements of tragedy and heartbreak.  Plus it has explosions, exciting naval battles, high drama, comedy and a pig!  Might I recommend someone like Hugh Grant to play the role of the dedicated wikipedian, who decades later brings the forgotten Tirpitz to the attention of the world, and who subsquently becomes a millionaire?  And shame on User: Kralizec!!  This is clearly a TOP priority for the project!  It's what Tirpitz would have wanted.  Benea 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a Wikipedia tongue-sticking-out emoticon?  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I thought long and hard about tagging it for the project, but I thought I'd get laughed off the project for tagging an article about a pig alongside the likes of the Victory, Bismarck or Arizona, or any serious ship article.  But hurrah, Tirpitz the pig has finally arrived in the world of wikipedia!  Now about that film, and my percentage...  ;) Benea 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget another important plot element: BACON. Perhaps our POTD-winning animator Emoscopes will take up the challenge! Maralia 15:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A must read 

message: I'm sure this has been addressed before, but I couldn't find previous mention: what should we do about modern ships that don't appear to have an official class? I'm specifically faced with a slew of WWII coastal minesweepers that were converted fishing trawlers and have no apparent class designation in DANFS (see USS Puffin (AMc-29), USS Road Runner (AMc-35) as examples). Should we just describe them as coastal minesweepers and skip mention of a class for these ships altogether? Maralia 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do exactly as you suggest.  I don't think any class should be mentioned when the ship is a unique conversion of a fishing trawler. TomTheHand 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I agree. IF there wasn't an actual class, then we don't need to mention it. I'd just call it a unique coastal minesweeper. Parsecboy 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A class dilemma 

message: I updated the infobox for USS Cambria (APA-36), but I'm a bit fuzzy on how some of the fields from the old format map into the new format. If anyone has more experience than me on this sort of matter, could I ask that they have a look at it? grendel|khan 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone give this the once-over? 

message: I was asked
:Ahoy. This video of U.S. wartime news flicks features a film of the holy-crap variety about the bombing of the USS Franklin, from 2:35 onwards. The talk page was far too inactive to make a question and expect a reply in reasonable time, but since you probably know more about this matter than me, i.e. anything, is there any particular reason not to add a link to the article?
:YouTube videos are disliked because of their tendency to have copyright issues. Note, though, that the article is illustrated with stills of the same events, which are template'd as public domain for being taken by a U.S. Navy employee during his duties, which would also be the case with this footage. --Kizor 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a YouTube link to USS Franklin - permissible? 

message: Hi, I was looking at :Category:Destroyer classes and looking for the best way to split up the huge number of sub-cats into something more manageable when I stumbled across something rather odd. When I tried to divide the articles up into nationality I found two cats which did exactly the same thing :Category:Royal Navy destroyers and :Category:Destroyers of the United Kingdom. This appears to be an issue for all classes of Royal Navy warship. Can anybody explain why and what should be done about it?--Jackyd101 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what the categories state, the destroyers of the UK category is for all destroyers operated by the UK, while the RN category is only for those specifically commissioned into the RN. I could be wrong, but I would assume that, for example, the destroyers given to the UK in Lend-Lease would fit the first, but not the second category. Regardless, I think that such distinction is unneccesary, and we could safely lose the RN category. Parsecboy 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but I don't believe that any destroyers have ever been operated in the UK outside the aegis of the Royal Navy (lend-lease destroyers were all commissioned into the RN and are univesally classed with ships commissioned and built in Britain). I agree that one of the categories has to go.--Jackyd101 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The country vs. navy categorization discussion is long-running and contentious, and any attempts to merge one into the other end with a "no consensus."  They each have advantages and disadvantages, and while Destroyers of the United Kingdom and Royal Navy destroyers describe the exact same group of ships, that's not the case for all ship types or all countries. TomTheHand 02:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than give my own long winded explanation, I will just ditto what TomTheHand said, but add a double-helping of the "contentious" and "long-running" parts.  :-(  (and add a frowny face) --Kralizec! (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, well-put.  If it makes the navy vs. country categorization more acceptable, we now try to put the navy or country category on the class category where possible, and remove it on individual ship articles.  That makes it a little cleaner.  For example, :Category:Submarines of the United States should go on :Category:Balao class submarines, and not on the individual ships that make up the class.  However, if a ship was sold to another country, that country's cat should go on the ship article.  For example,  is a Balao-class submarine, and so the article doesn't need a "Submarines of the United States" category because the parent category has it.  However, she was sold to Turkey, so it does need :Category:Submarines of Turkey. TomTheHand 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category confusion

message: has renamed the articles for various Japanese aircraft carriers from Japanese aircraft carrier {name} to {name} (aircraft carrier).  Does anyone know anything about this?  It seems to contradict Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and the way we do things in general. TomTheHand 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh.  This is going to take a ton of work to fix.  Do we have an admin on project who can just rollback the moves?  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an admin.  I just didn't want to start rolling back without asking anyone. TomTheHand 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I agree it's a deviation.  Someone raised it with me over German weather ship Lauenburg, his justification was that it took too long to read German weather ship before you got to Lauenburg, which seemed rather weak to me.  It also goes against all the naming conventions that I can think of.  HMS is Her Majesty's Ship, USS is United States Ship.  We don't do Victory (Her Majesty's Ship), or Arizona (United States Ship).  So doing it for the aircraft carriers splits that convention.  I can sort of see why he might do that, but I think we should keep it to title first, name second. Benea 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like what happened is Pogo created a carrier article, with naming that matched our conventions, and someone on new page patrol renamed it to {name} (aircraft carrier) while he was working on it, so he got the impression that that's how articles are supposed to be named. TomTheHand 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we agreed that the current convention should stand?  If so, can we warn both of them about the right way of doing it then start changing it back? Benea 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fully agreed over the current convention. While {name} (aircraft carrier) works, {name} (aircraft carrier) (1943) certainly does not. The existing convention is logical and works in pretty much all cases just fine. Martocticvs 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started moving the articles back.  These aren't obstructed moves, so everyone can help.  Make sure to fix double redirects. TomTheHand 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)To my mind, the current naming convention looks good and works great (yes, I even maintain that in spite of the current brouhaha at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force). However since the person who started this by renaming Pogo935`s article was an admin, I think we should leave a friendly note rather than a warning.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurred to me that the original cause of this mistake might have been the difference between naming conventions for commercial ships (which follow (name) (type)). Not that it would be of any particular consequence, but I can see how it could be confusing to a newbie. -- Kjet 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I had just noticed that today too. Irritating. Clearly a mature, productive member (and sorry, no AGF from me today, I've assessed 8 kazillion articles this morning and my kid won't take a freaking nap for the umpteenth day in a row). Maralia 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait-wait.  Pogo935 vandalized my user page?!?  z0mg!  Please do AGF here, though.  He wrote this perfectly good stub.  Maybe multiple people share the computer. TomTheHand 17:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an heroic attempt to AGF, I have decided that zombies must have made him do it. Maralia 17:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. When I said warning, I meant warning as in 'arrrgh run! the volcano is erupting' rather than 'desist, or I shall challenge you to fisticuffs!' Curses upon the subtlties of the English language and Zombies in general. pip pip! Benea 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Japanese aircraft carrier articles 

message: A user has been creating shipindex disambig pages using a style where s/he actually numbers the ships listed (albeit with roman numerals). Examples are HMCS Gatineau, HMCS Assiniboine. The numbering is just another way of saying 'first, second' etc, but I find it confusing to have yet another numeral assigned to ships that are already disambiguated by hull/pennant/year - and I'm further confused by why we would hide those actual disambig parameters on, well, a disambig page. Am I being dense? Maralia 03:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another unusual type is where the ship links are all the same (so the hull/pennant numbers are suppressed), but each line is individually numbered in text ("the first Foo", "the second Foo", etc.).  Examples include HMS Warspite, HMS Royal Oak, etc.  A quick glance at WP:MOSDAB leads me to believe that neither style (Roman numbers or text numbers) meets the guideline, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries which indicates "entries should not be pipe linked — refer to the article name in full" and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping which explicitly states an exception for when piping is used "to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier ... for instance USS Adder (SS-3)." --Kralizec! (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion on disambig