Talk:List of World War II ships

message: === Moved from article ===
There is a preponderance of entries from the English-speaking nations. Partly this reflects the dominant actual numbers of major warships from the United States and the British Empire, but also since the entries reflect the awareness of contributors, who are most likely to be English-speaking. This is being addressed.
Note:  I've transferred the start of this talk from my user talk page so that everyone can comment on the scope issue.
I see you've appended some extra info to some of the carriers in the WWII list of warships, making the point that these were US-built, RN-used, then returned to the US. All true, no argument. There are over 30 of these (known in the UK as Attacker and Ruler classes). Before you spend time on this, however, I think we need to get a consensus on the scope of the info in the list. IMHO, some info, perhaps post-war disposal, would be better in separate articles and not padding out a list. I'm also guilty. Also, why a list and not a category, apart from the need to set up articles? Happy New Year! Folks at 137 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started this list, the idea was to have a single list of all individual ships listed alphabetically, for people to look up a ship by name.  This list is getting pretty hefty, and I agree a lot of the info regarding events beyond the war are probably not in scope.  I am trying to use more of the guidelines from the Ships project, thus the extra information.  Additionally, the carriers are entries I made on the list of aircraft carriers, which is not limited to WWII, and I haven't taken the time to customize them for the WWII list.  Part of the reason to have a list is that many ships do not have articles, and may never have articles, with the little synopsis in the list sufficient for the significance of the vessel.  BTW, I'm adding this discussion to the list's talk page.  Joshbaumgartner 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: There is a preponderance of entries from the English-speaking nations. Partly this reflects the dominant actual numbers of major warships from the United States and the British Empire, but also since the entries reflect the awareness of contributors, who are most likely to be English-speaking. This is being addressed.
Note:  I've transferred the start of this talk from my user talk page so that everyone can comment on the scope issue.
I see you've appended some extra info to some of the carriers in the WWII list of warships, making the point that these were US-built, RN-used, then returned to the US. All true, no argument. There are over 30 of these (known in the UK as Attacker and Ruler classes). Before you spend time on this, however, I think we need to get a consensus on the scope of the info in the list. IMHO, some info, perhaps post-war disposal, would be better in separate articles and not padding out a list. I'm also guilty. Also, why a list and not a category, apart from the need to set up articles? Happy New Year! Folks at 137 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started this list, the idea was to have a single list of all individual ships listed alphabetically, for people to look up a ship by name.  This list is getting pretty hefty, and I agree a lot of the info regarding events beyond the war are probably not in scope.  I am trying to use more of the guidelines from the Ships project, thus the extra information.  Additionally, the carriers are entries I made on the list of aircraft carriers, which is not limited to WWII, and I haven't taken the time to customize them for the WWII list.  Part of the reason to have a list is that many ships do not have articles, and may never have articles, with the little synopsis in the list sufficient for the significance of the vessel.  BTW, I'm adding this discussion to the list's talk page.  Joshbaumgartner 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: There's a move to improve the presentation of lists. Any comments on the format so far? The conversion is a bit time-consuming, but it can be done in stages. If there's a separate list for each letter, then the headings and toc can be retained. Folks at 137 19:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: Arnoutf has assessed this list as "start" (without using the checklist!) and commented that "short scan implies UK pov in this list- this has either to be acknowledged or corrected". Not sure of the basis, since any list is liable to reflect its contributors and the Royal Navy component is, as yet, as incomplete as most others. Comments welcome. And action points. Folks at 137 23:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't get what Arnoutf is talking about. Sure, the list is incomplete, but I'm working on it, and I hope others are as well. UK pov? Don't really see that. I sure don't have a UK pov. And there's nothing blocking the list from gaining more non-RN ships. And I really love it when people make judgements on issues after doing "short scans". Manxruler 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating POV?

message: The links should go to Nazi Germany. How do we fix this? Manxruler 10:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do it by changing the code from  to . It will result in this: . I'll fix it right away. --MoRsE 11:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's great, thanks a lot. Manxruler 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The country links on German ships go to post-war [[Germany]]

message: We really should do something about all the "ship names" here that really don't go anywhere but to non-ship wikis. Manxruler 12:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm concentrating on getting entries, but will look thru for this problem. It's reasonably obvious when there's a possibility, but takes more time to correct the links & disambig. Folks at 137 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The names of the ships

message: This list is already over-size, becoming slow to load and will continue to grow. It needs to be reduced or split. The options appear to be:
#raise the minimum displacement to a suitable number and move the non-qualifiers to a new list or lists 
#split the list by nation or axis/allied
#split by type (ie, destroyer, cruiser, etc)
#restrict to "active" belligerents
#split alphabetically
I've not assessed the impact of each solution on the problem and there may be other solutions. Any views/  consensus? Folks at 137 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is too long. I would suggest splitting by type or class - make sure to include freighters as Victory and Liberty class as these were instrumental for allied victory. This list could then be a list of types; or classes employed in WWII which each have their own list article. Arnoutf 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should hold the Liberty ships out of this, keep the list a strictly warship one. Type splitting is definitely the way to go. That would make the list much easier to view. Removing the passive belligerents (like the Danes - the Royal Danish Navy did almost nothing in WWII, except scuttling itself in 1943) could also be an idea. Manxruler 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also don't feel we should raise the minimum displacement, its about right I think. Manxruler 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are separate type lists a duplication of other articles or categories? The nature of this list is alphabetic: should this be preserved? If we do split by type, then perhaps we should include the <1000 tonners: any displacement criterion is arbitrary and ships of similar purpose are currently in each list. The inclusion of Liberty and similar ships is, IMO, inadvisable: it would add too much, dilute the nature of this list and it's arguable that all merchantmen were critical to the allied cause. Folks at 137 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to keep the alphabetic order. Yep, if we split by type should include the <1000 tonners, there are for example plenty of <1000 ton destroyers. We would have to make a list that includes all the different types of warships, minesweepers, gunboats, etc. Manxruler 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And all transport ships were instrumental for allied victory. Not just the Liberty and Victory ones. They weren't around in the beginning. Let's keep those out of it.Manxruler 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that we should split by nation and use this entry as a list of the national lists. There doesn't seem to be any reason to combine all the various national fleets in a single list and this split would make more sense than splitting by class as most naval forces during the war were centred around ships from a single national navy. --Nick Dowling 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to keep the alphabetical order as well, and NOT split by type. Instead, I propose that the list be split alphabetically, with "List of World War II ships A", "List of World War II ships B", "List of World War II ships C", etc. This is the manner in which many other wikiprojects handle very long lists. I also agree that the list should be limited only to combat vessels. --MChew 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Split alphabetically (at least for now) - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split apart.  An alphabetical split would be the easiest division.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If this list is split then each of the sublists ought to have a link back to the main article and links to the next and previous article in the series. Most importantly, please dont do just a small section and then leave it. Either do it properly or not at all. Op47 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Size matters

message: The ship names lead to the same article. I understand the ship was first called Coronel and then renamed Togo and reclassified from auxicillary cruiser to radar control ship. Still, should ONE ship have TWO listings here? Wouldn't it be better if Coronel/Togo had one listing and it was mentioned that the ship changed name and role during the war? Manxruler 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Coronel'' and ''Togo'' is one ship

message: i think it would be a good idea to do a similar list for ww2 submarines and move the U-boats there. opinions? Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is very long so that might be a good idea. However, if we were to create an article called List of World War II submarines then the 1,000 ton limit shouldn't apply. Afterall, many subs were less than 1,000 tons. We could move the subs from here and from list of World War II ships of less than 1000 tons to the new list. I support this proposal. Manxruler (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a problem with this list is it doesn't specify what kind of displacement is used. is that standard displacement? i agree the 1000 tons limit shouldn't apply for subs. Loosmark (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: True, true. Manxruler (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal

message: Aren't there a handful of ocean liners converted for troop transport/hospital ships that would qualify to be on this list? I.e. the Queen Mary, the Queen Elizabeth, Aquitania, Mauretania (2), etc --24.21.148.155 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. "This list does not include all ships used for military purposes, e.g.; oilers, troopships, landing craft, etc., partly for space reasons and partly since this is a list of fighting ships.". Manxruler (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ocean liners?

message: arethusa class cruisers HMS Penelope aurora arethusa galatea should be on the list also the l class destroyers HMS Lively Lance Legion Lighting Gurkha(larne)laforey Lookout all these ships played part in ww2 penelope aurora lance lively legion played a bigger part in the war than half the ships on the list  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.106.126 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  arethusa class light cruisers and l class destroyers should be on the list 

message: The USS St. Louis is missing from this list. She had a very storied service career during WW2 and earned 11 battler stars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.70.56 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cl 49 

message: Royal Navy or Great Britain? Do you link to the type of ship where it is a redlink, or the redlink. This needs consistancy. Thanks, Matty.007 11:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: My father was in WW2 and served in the pacific on a liberty ship that was a maintenance ship that repaired U.S. and allied ships.  He told me that his ship was the "USS Larities pronounced (Lar-i-teez).  Both ships are not listed, I hope you can update your records to include the ships that had brave men that served our country.  One of the stories he told me before he died, was the men on the ship volunteered to do "clean up duties" he called it.  I ask him what that was and he started to cry and looked at me and said "Bill, did you ever think to your self what happened to men after the battles were over, who cleaned up the men off the battle field?"  I replied "No, it was not brought up in history class and it never crossed my mind. Was their a special crew that did it?" He said "No, military people from all the military's volunteered to do it."  At this point he went into detail that was too horrific to put on here.  Please do a little research and include these brave men and their ship in your listings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.13.106 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S Navy ship not listed.