Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 8

message: I wonder, if US Army's rams of the Civil War era (United States Ram Fleet), like "Queen of the West", should have USS prefix. Ellet's ram fleet was technically owned and operated by the Army even after the transfer of the Western Gunboat Flotilla to the Navy and was always somewhat independent of Navy command (info from NHC). Note, that NHC lists them without USS prefix, and refers to them like: "U.S. Ram Queen of the West". 
Secondly: why should Confederate Army ships of River Defence Fleet, like CSS General Earl Van Dorn have CSS prefix?.. NHC titles them with prefixes on individual pages, eg. CSS General Bragg, but here lists them as: "C.S. River Defense Fleet Ram".
Third thing: is there a reason to give CSS prefix to Luisiana state vessels, like CSS Governor Moore? NHC titles them with CSS on individual pages, but it seems doubtful. According to Mississippi gunboats... from Osprey / New Vangaurd, Louisiana vessels remained under separate command from the Army and Navy. Pibwl ←« 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The USS prefix is only for ships that were commissioned in the US Navy; so you're correct that using that prefix for an Army operated ship is incorrect. The Army also operated some troop transports which have been referred to as USAT. I think that for wikipedia purposes we could call them USARS = United States Army Ram Ship ? Let me think about the other two questions you had --Brad (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If we think CSS = Confederate States Ship then it might be able to be used on ships regardless of who operated them. I don't believe the CSA existed long enough to set a precedence for CSS referring only to Confederate Navy ships. --Brad (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should make an exception for Louisiana ships. Even our article CSS Governor Moore starts with "LSNS Governor Moore...". In a quoted Osprey book, the author titles River Defense Fleet ships with CSS, and US War Departament ships with USS (possibly not thinking about it too much), but Louisiana vessels with LSNS, and writes on Governor Moore: she was not officialy a Confederate naval vessel as she remained part of the Louisiana Provisional Navy until her destruction. Pibwl ←« 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can agree there. It seems fairly well documented that Louisiana had their own Naval ships in operation. Somewhere the explanation has to be made on the difference of how ships are prefixed in the military vs what we have had to do here on WP; the differences can be quite confusing at times. I think I see a project page on the horizon that explains all the differences. Did you have plans to move the articles to the proper name? --Brad (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no plans to move yet (which ones? Ellet's rams and LSNS?) - I just wanted to consult problem. Pibwl ←« 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our conversation points out there are Army Ram ships using a USS prefix and some LSNS using the CSS prefix as the article name, which means they will have to be renamed eventually. --Brad (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US ships' prefixes doubt 

message: Hey guys, I could use some help with an issue.  Should the Plunger class submarines actually be called the Adder class?  I have sources that go either way.  The first one in the numbering sequence, SS-2, was USS Plunger, but she was the last laid down and the last completed; the first boat completed was USS Adder.  Later, they were all renamed to the A class, with Plunger being A-1.  Friedman refers to them as the Adder or A-1 class, the Registry of Ships of the U.S. Navy refers to them as the Plunger class.  History.navy.mil seems to use "Plunger" or "A-1". TomTheHand (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would stick with "Plunger", given that that's what the USN calls them. It can always be mentioned in the introduction that they're sometimes referred to as the Adder class, and state why. If there's not already a redirect for Adder class submarine, one could be created as well. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and then just do a redirect from "Adder class", I think that would probably do it. Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a redirect for Adder class submarine, and also added a line explaining the Adder class name to the article. Is there anything else that should be done? Parsecboy (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess you could do a redirect for A-1 class submarine too :) Gatoclass (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plunger" or "Adder" class? 

message: I am starting to have doubts about the primary reference for List of Allied ships at the Japanese surrender and the associated :Category:Ships at the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, namely the NHC list of Allied Ships Present in Tokyo Bay During the Surrender Ceremony, 2 September 1945.  I was trying to do some category sorting for  to get it in the right place, when I noticed it isn't on the list, but  is.  Since I couldn't confirm it with other sources, I removed that statement from the Pheasant article.  But then I started to check the other Commonwealth craft in the category, and found that there are other sources that state  was there, and the DANFS entry for , who is on the NHC list, is ambiguous on her presence in Tokyo Bay at the time.  A search of Naval-History.net yields other Commonwealth craft that were supposedly there, but are not on the NHC list (but not HMS Pheasant).  Other than feeling more research is needed, I haven't reached any conclusions.  Ideas?  --J Clear (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geoff Mason's ship histories is one of the most detailed day-to-day references for the World War Two British and Commonwealth ships I know of.  It firmly places HMAS Bataan at the surrender, but not HMS Pheasant, which it says was operating off Hong Kong after the surrender.  I have previously noticed other ships which are reported at the surrender, but are not on the list. Benea (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships at Japanese Surrender 

message: In working through the unassessed importance backlog, I've come across a few articles about navies that had class assessments but not importance. I wasn't (and still am not) sure as to what level of importance they should get, so I checked some more prominent navies for precedent. It turns out that the Royal Navy, the French, German, Indian, and Russian Navies aren't listed under this project, but the US Navy is, listed as High importance. Are navies best left to WP:Maritime under MILHIST, or do they fall within our scope as well? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the US Navy article but that skimming over it quickly led me to believe the article was discussing ship classes. A second look shows that ships are only mentioned in brief so I guess if the tag remains it should at least be a low importance. I suppose the same might apply to other Navies of the world. --Brad (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking. I'll retag the USN to low importance and add WP:Ships to the untagged navies. Thanks for your comment. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about scope 

message: I am having problems with getting a user at USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) to understand why we can't allow personal fisrthand persoanl accounts. Please see the discussion at Talk:USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)#References?. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with first-hand info 

message: 3 sloops, 1 lightship, 1 shipwreck are stub-rated articles within List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, holding back advancement of list to Featured List.  Stubs, but with detailed sources identified and linked.  Could anyone help develop these?
*Christeen (sloop)  -- it is said to be a "Gaf rigged sloop" can anyone explain?
*Land Tortoise (shipwreck)
*Modesty (sloop)
*Nantucket (lightship)
*Priscilla (sloop)
Thanks for considering. doncram (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Priscilla (sloop) and Christeen (sloop), my first thought is to ask why the photos of both show nothing but a tarped up shape floating near a dock? Even if those two articles were expanded, the photos alone would be a huge downer. --Brad (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well those pics were garnered by a hardworking fellow wikipedian who made the drive to go take pics of them, along with other NYS NHLs out in that area.  Sure, tarp-free pics would be nice.  Can you make the trip and cut the tarps off first, please?  :)  The request I made was to improve the articles, say to high Start or to B-level is what i am hoping for.  The List of NHLs is what we are trying to bring to Featured List now. doncram (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 sloops, 1 lightship, 1 shipwreck 

message: I've been working on the MS Riverdance article, and found this on the Blackpool Gazette website. Looks like enough info to start an article or two for those who are interested. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created an article for the Abana. Ref #1 on that article is a good source of info too. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of info on shipwrecks 

message: The article HMAS Melbourne (R21), which I've spent the past few months working on, us undergoing a peer review under the auspices of the Military History WikiProject. Curious/concerned editors from here might like to drop in... I'd appreciate the critiques. -- saberwyn 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MilHist peer review for [[HMAS Melbourne (R21)]] in progress 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Dual Freq (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Ship table multiple careers}}]] 

message: Is there a way of adding a ships IMO number other that under "notes"? Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use "Ship identification=", which shows up as "Identification:" and is intended as a catchall for IMO numbers, callsigns, etc, etc. TomTheHand (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships infobox question 

message: I've nominated  for deletion at the template's entry on the Redirects for Deletion page.  It's a redirect to a deprecated template, and all articles that once had transclusions of this redirect have been cleaned up to now use .  Note: the template nominated for deletion is a different redirect from , which still has several articles using it as an inclusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfD nomination of [[:Template:Ship Table]] 

message: After some discussion on it's talk page,  has been marked as deprecated and all relevant transclusions converted to the current template.  I haven't submitted it for deletion yet - I wasn't sure if that was appropriate or if it should be converted to a redirect to the current template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: update re: Template:Infobox Ferry

message: Can someone go ahead and work on the infobox on this article. Another user just recently added the new infobox, but there was too many problems. I blanked most of the data inside the box because it was either identical, not supported by the text, or implausible. Thanks, -MBK004 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the info from the bottom of the article to the infobox, added some missing fields, removed country and flag fields as we haven't been using them for commercial ships, and put in some information from this site. Some of new stuff added contradicts the body text - I've found the site I used as a source extremely reliable in the past but didn't have the time to start fiddling with the body text. Someone should probably look into the sources of the article to see which information is correct. I won't have time to look into it myself right now - I can do it in a few days, but if someone wants it done sooner... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NS Savannah]] 

message: I've nominated  for deletion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page.  The template has been deprecated for a few weeks now, and I completed converting all transclusions of it over to  earlier today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:template:WAFerry]] 

message: I am an editor with the Military History WikiProject, working on some assessment for that project when I encountered the series :Category: Lists of ship commissionings. I was under the impression that commissioning was an exclusively military term and was removing civilian vessels from the list when I was informed that several other editors had interpreted those lists to include all ships entering into active service. Therefore, I am asking editors here and at MilHist to weigh in with their thoughts and comments at :Category talk:Lists of ship commissionings.  Thank you. Cromdog (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of ship commissionings issue 

message: Let me try to elucidate my position one more time.
For classes with multiple commission periods, an In commission field is best. So for Iowa class battleships you might have something like:
:In commission: 1941-46
:::::1950-58
:::::1990-95
But for classes with only one commission period, the "Commissioned/Decommissioned" fields offer a means of providing more information, but still in a straightforward and succinct way. So instead of using the In commission field you have:
:Bayfield class:
:Commissioned: 1941-43
:Decommissioned: 1946-70
The point I'm making is that we can use the fields in a mutually exclusive way to avoid confusion. For classes with multiple commission periods, we can use the "In commission" field and ignore the "Commissioned/Decommissioned" fields. For classes with only one commission period, we ignore the "In commission" field and just use the "Commissioned/Decommissioned" fields, which allows for more information.
A system like that shouldn't be in the least confusing for the reader. The only potential problem I see with it is that editors have to understand how the system works. But that is by no means an insurmountable obstacle. New editors can usually be quickly corrected when they are getting something wrong, so in essence I see no need to delete the old fields. By all means add the new "In commission" field, yes, that's a good idea. But I see no need to delete the old fields at the same time, they still have a useful place in the scheme of things. Gatoclass (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the clarification.  My overall position is that infoboxes should look as similar as possible, minimizing specialized fields and avoiding having different ways to convey the same or similar information.  I feel pretty strongly about this and it influences all of my arguments on infobox topics.  There have to be some differences, especially in commercial vs. military vessels, but I think it's best to keep differences to a minimum.  I don't think it's a good idea for some articles to have an "In commission" range while others have a range of commission dates and a range of decommission dates.  I think they should all have the same information, and since an "In commission" range is the simpler and more universally applicable solution, that's what I think we should go with. TomTheHand (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, I still agree with Tom. Plus in my experience users will try to fill in every field they can, hence if we add both "in commission" and "commissioned/decommissioned" fields, I don't believe they would end up being used in a mutually exclusive way - many articles would end up having both. But this is only a minor concern, my main reasoning still remains that having just one field with the range is simpler and easier to read - the infobox isn't meant to display every possible piece of information available about a class (or individual ship).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjet (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm sure we all want to wind up this discussion ASAP, I've taken the liberty of canvassing a few veterans Wikishippers to ask them to contribute their views. Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lost in the length of this thread, frankly. If I understand correctly, there is a widely accepted proposal to add an "In Commission" field to take a date range, and the issue now is whether to retain the old "Commissioned" and "Decommissioned" fields. I think "In Commission" is a fine replacement for the other two, but as it's wholly redundant with the old fields, I would not want to see it added unless it was to replace them. Maralia (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite ... this has to do with the new class template (outlined as a sub-template within ).  It's not a change to the "Infobox Ship Career" subsection, but rather a question of how to best implement the data within the "Infobox Ship Class Overview" subsection.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Here's a summary for people who haven't been following this thread.  We've been working on a brand new ship class infobox that uses portions of .  I tried to cut down on the number of fields, because I feel like  has too many and they're confusing.
The point that we're debating, which we really need more input on, is whether the new infobox should just have a "In commission:" field for the range of dates a class was in commission, or if we should also have fields where you can specify a range of commissioning dates and a range of decommissioning dates.  Since we're writing a new infobox from scratch we don't have to worry about removing the old fields; none of them are in at the moment, and we're working out whether to include them in the new box. TomTheHand (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in principle against an 'also' when it comes to infobox fields—it should be either or—and my preference is for the range "In commission". Maralia (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom's summary above doesn't quite sum the debate up comprehensively from my POV, so I've added a header entitled "Clarification" above so that latecomers can read exactly what my position is in regards to this question. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey ho everyone.  I've hung back from entering the debate thus far as I don't have particularly strong opinions on the matter.  I would tend to agree with Maralia though, in that extra fields can be confusing.  When writing articles about ships captured from the French say in the Napoleonic Wars, I'm never entirely sure whether to put the date of capture in the 'ship acquired field' or the 'ship in service field'. Or should I put it in the 'ship captured field', or does that refer to if and when the ship was captured from the Navy rather than captured into it.  More variations on a theme when discussing service dates would I think only add to the uncertainty.  But that said, if a valid case can be made where two alternatives would be more helpful and informative, I wouldn't be opposed.  Benea (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also add me to the been-following-the-debate-and-not-possessing-especially-strong-opinions-but-not-real-excited-about-adding-additional-potentially-confusing-fields pack.  --Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think at this stage I'll drop it. As Tom says, I guess we can always add new fields later if we want to, and I have more than enough on my plate right now without taking on an extended discussion to try and convince folks I'm right about this :). Maybe I'll take it up again some other time, but I guess we can manage with the current version for now. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Latching onto the above discussion; does anyone have a strong opinion on if a "vessel original cost" field could be added to the class template?  Or should that information be left in the individual ship infoboxes? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably no harm in adding it to the class template IMO. I guess you'd have to call it "cost per ship" or something just to make clear it's the cost of individual ships in the class and not of the class as a whole.Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we fully hammer out the service/commission fields, I will also add cost and name fields to the template. TomTheHand (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: add cost field for class template?

message: Hello
Can somebody merge USS Tennessee (BB-43), USS Tennessee (BB-43) 1945, USS Tennessee (BB-43) 1944, USS Tennessee (BB-43) 1941-1943 ? PMG (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there's no need to have sub-articles for years. From a cursory inspection of the main articles and its daughters, it appears there really isn't much in the daughters that isn't already in the parent, with the exception of information relating to battles and so forth that isn't directly relevant to the Tennessee. I likely won't have any time this weekend, but I should have time next week to take a fine tooth comb over the subs to see if there actually is relevant info that could be merged. Given that the main article is only 33kb, and it contains 90% or greater of the information in the sub articles, there's really no reason to branch them in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at Talk:USS Tennessee (BB-43), there apparently was some agreement to split the sections but I'd agree that the manner in which they were split really made no difference in shortening the length of any of the articles. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Tennessee (BB-43) 

message: There's a bit of a tête-a-tête going on here about the differences between rating systems, sails plans, etc, and how we describe them.  Do we use the terms that those involved at the time used?  Or what scholars use? (my preference) Or try and work a rating system backwards and apply it to them (very dangerously close to OR in my book).  The situation seems to be getting a bit out of hand with an ip determined to press one view, so some extra knowledge and opinions would be good to establish a workable consensus. ttfn, Benea (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Battle of Lake Erie]] 

message: The submarines SS-361 through SS-364 appear, due to their hull numbers, to be members of the Balao class, and many sources, including DANFS, list them as such, but according to the Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, "SS 361-364 were built to the Gato design because Manitowoc built to Electric Boat plans and Electric Boat's Balao class plans were not ready when these boats were begun."  UBoat.net says the same thing.  It seems to me that this is most likely correct, given that they've gone out of their way to state something unusual and explain why it's the case.  However,  is changing their articles to state that they're Balaos.  I've explained the situation, but he's said that DANFS is more reliable and must be correct and is revert warring with me.  Could I get another set of eyes on the situation? TomTheHand (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he reverts you again, let me know and I'll block for edit warring and disruption. -MBK004 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MBK.  I don't really want to block him; I'm sure he's acting in good faith and he obviously has an interest in ship topics.  He just apologized, so it seems to be over. TomTheHand (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that does make sense. Maybe we should invite him to join using ? -MBK004 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But then I worry about him seeing this embarassing conversation ;-) TomTheHand (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It will archive soon enough, and in my experience new editors don't usually read every thing on these talk pages immediately. -MBK004 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with SS-361 to SS-364 

message: The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there goes the rest of my Saturday, but I can't do less for the "family boat".  --J Clear (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[USS Constitution]] now open 

message: Is this something we would want for ease of reference on the project main-page? For example, take a look at WikiProject Scouting. -MBK004 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I needed to hear. I'll implement the section in a couple of hours. I may miss someone though, so feel free to double-check. -MBK004 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished compiling the list. There were more admins than I thought (20). This was compiled from the active participants portion of our list of participants. I did not check the inactive ones, nor the last time the active participants list was checked for inactive members. I also took the opportunity to be bold and modify the layout a little bit. -MBK004 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Admins in the Project 

message: Could someone please move USS Neville (AP-16) to USS Neville (APA-9) for me? I can't do it because the APA-9 page already exists as a redirect with a history. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You might want to fix up the redirects from USS Neville --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll do that, no problem. Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help request 

message: I'm not sure if this is a ships item, but I get involved in shipboard radar and missile articles and WP:Ships is always very helpful with this sort of thing. I'm trying to split Standard Missile into several articles: RIM-66 Standard missile medium range, RIM-67 Standard missile extended range, AGM-78 Standard ARM and RIM-161 Standard missile 3 but I'm having some trouble. I've created the disambiguation page, Standard missile and split most of the material, but there is still some information left to split and I don't know where to put it. The RIM-156 SM-2 Bk IV info seems to be a follow on for the RIM-66 and used only on Aegis platforms. However, it replaces the RIM-67 ER since and uses a booster like the RIM-67. The problem with putting it in the RIM-67 article is the RIM-67 was not used on Aegis platforms and the -156 was used only on Aegis VLS ships. I also don't know what to do with the ERAM SM-6 info. It's sketchy and developmental and I'm not sure if either missile is worth its own article. There is also some question on naming convention as well as traceability of contributions since the information could not be moved directly the edit history will be broken. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is RIM-67 is linked in many Aegis VLS ship articles, but RIM-67 is too big for VLS and they would use a mix of RIM-66 III/A/B, RIM-156 (blk IV) for AAW and SM-3 for those BMD capable. I'm planning to redirect those to RIM-66 since that is what is primarily used on Aegis VLS ships. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Brain...hurts!  (Buries self in age of sail armaments, but is swept away by references to 32-pdr carronades, 18pdr guns, 9pdr long guns, chase guns, pivot guns, swivel guns arrrrrrrghhhhhh!) Propose new renaming convention - all military ordnance to be renamed 'things that go bang and hurt people'. Pip pip! Benea (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the alphabet soup, there is a discussion on Talk:RIM-161 Standard missile 3 about the naming convention as well. Maybe the idea of splitting the articles was wrong, but I think it improves wikipedia's coverage of the missiles over the previous single article and dozens of articles incorrectly stating -67 missiles were on VLS ships. The former article was a confusing mess of specs sheets copied from Global Security or fact file. Now they are split into medium range and extended range. It affects a number of ship articles, so I thought it would be worth bring up here. -Dual Freq (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipboard Standard missiles 

message: An editor has proposed a deletion of a section of this article, but I can't find any formal notification under AfD that it has been done. So far the only discussion is on the talk page of the article. Are the correct proceedures being followed here? Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IFAIK the deletion of a section of an article would not come up at AfD, only the deletion of the whole article itself, which doesn't seem to be the case here.  As to whether the section should be kept, that comes as the result of discussion and eventual consensus, there isn't a particularly formal review procedure for that.  Benea (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any experienced editors that can spare a minute, please take a look at this article and comment on the inclusion of the passenger list section, as there's not clear consensus yet about the way forward.  Once this issue is resolved, the article should be of GA quality. Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SS Gothenburg]] 

message: How do other people handle ship class precedence (ie, which class comes before/after another class of the same type)? I've been going on the date that the first ship in each class was commissioned, but I'm not sure if that's how others do it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I've been doing it as well. Oftentimes, naval ships are incremental designs, and in my experience, sources will usually somewhere reference the previous class, and state how the newer was an improvement, which makes it easy to determine order. Another thing to consider (but I don't know how universal this is), for example, with the German Kaiserliche Marine, ships were ordered in yearly building programs (i.e., the battlecruiser Von der Tann was the BC ordered for fy1906, Moltke for fy1907, and so forth). Again, I don't know if other navies operate in a similar fashion, so that might not be of help to you. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class precedence 

message: I have (finally!) added documentation to , a shortcut template for creating an external link to a ship’s page at NavSource, a site which bills itself as containing a "Photographic History Of The U.S. Navy". Though often containing the same public domain images available from the Naval Historical Center, ship’s pages there are often augmented with other non-free images. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation for {{tl|navsource}} 

message: What are appropriate infobox flags to use in articles about US Army and US Air Force ships?
—WWoods (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been using  on articles I've worked on, because I don't know if there was a different flag (as with the U.S. Coast Guard), but figure that all surely would have flown the U.S. flag. But that brings up another question: what about a U.S. Navy ship crewed by the Coast Guard? In ship articles I've worked on where that's the case ( and  for example), I've noted it in the article, but should it be noted in the infobox, too? And is  still the appropriate for those? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For Military Sealift Command ships I've been using the |owner=US Navy and |operator=MSC lines within the infobox. It seems to work well. --Brad (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: displays the ensign instead of the jack because it's more representative of what the ship is flying most of the time.  Doing it in a template lets us change to the jack if consensus changes, but right now it's considered more appropriate to display the ensign. TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Army, Air Force ships 

message: Since the subject of flags has come up I thought I would throw in here for these ships. Somewhere I saw a mention that MSC operated ships are still using the Naval Jack? Also, if currently commissioned US Navy ships are using the Don't Tread On Me flag then why isn't  or  giving the appropriate flag? Or am I misunderstanding something about the DTOM flag usage? --Brad (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: displays the ensign instead of the jack because it's more representative of what the ship is flying most of the time.  Doing it in a template lets us change to the jack if consensus changes, but right now it's considered more appropriate to display the ensign. TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealift Command and current flag

message: I don't know how or have the time to fix this, but I'm sure someone can...  -MBK004 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Benea (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed infobox 

message: I forgot that some time ago I created Template:Battleship, and now its been nominated for speedy deletion. I have no plans to contest the deletion, but if anyone here wants to keep this template then feel free to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Hello. I've just categorized the article Sampo (icebreaker) and tried to clean it up. I started adding the infobox until I realized I had no idea what I was doing. I'd be grateful if somebody from the project can spend 10 minutes working on the article. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for letting us know. Maralia (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Always good to let competent people do the job right. Pichpich (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request 

message: I've been banging hard on Oil tanker and am considering trying to get it up to GA status.  Any assistance with critiques, copyediting and so forth would be appreciated. My current to-do list is on the talk page.  Cheers. HausTalk 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it's got a deprecated template. You'll want to convert it to one from :Template:Infobox Ship Begin/doc. From a quick scan, everything seems to be sourced pretty well. I removed the forced image sizes to be compliant with the images MoS, along with some other minor tweaks. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil tanker GA run? 

message: On the issue of cleaning up disambiguation pages for ships, USS Enterprise is out of control and needs to be redone. I've done a first version in my user space: User:Brad101/USS Enterprise but seeing as how popular of a ship this is, I think we should gain a bit of consensus before I make the changes. Feel free to edit or comment in the user space. --Brad (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the look of it. The only quibble would be the periods at the ends of each entry. Since entries on dab pages are generally phrases rather than sentences, the periods are superfluous. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it looks pretty good. No complaints here for substituting it for the current version. Good work. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me!  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Page is up now. --Brad (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Right; and right after your changes, someone else made more changes! Soon the page will be right back where it was. The more you make an index page look like an article, the more people want to cram things into it. I'm sure that pondering the expanse of the galaxy is somehow related to a ship named Enterprise. --Brad (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Enterprise 

message: I've added more shipwrecks to the Blackpool page. Should every year have that there is a shipwreck known have a list for that year? If so, then it would seem that there are lots of lists that need to be created! Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably want to ask that over in User:Esoltas/WikiProject Shipwrecks.  In general creating lots of very short list articles is probably not a good thing.  Consider using categories instead.  As to the Blackpool article: if shipwrecks are that big a part of the culture there, then that should be mentioned in the lead paragraph(s).  You probably don't want every shipwreck listed in that article, just the more famous ones.  And maybe in this case a single list article for all the ships lost at Blackpool warranted, because as is that article looks pretty ugly. In any case there should not be a section head for every ship, especially if there is only one very short line following.  Try using the '*' list instead of "===".  Just my two sense, er cents. --J Clear (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you're saying about short lists, but consider what may happen if all shipwrecks were added to the list for the year they were shipwrecked - some of those lists could well grow. The Blackpool shipwrecks will probably form an article of its own in due course, once more research and expansion is done. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is (usually) already a page for shipwrecks by year - see List of shipwrecks in 2000 for an example.  So your Blackpool shipwrecks could be collected there as well.  And I wouldn't worry about these being too short, the shipping industry loses a ship a week on average, which seems to keep our colleagues at WP Shipwrecks busy.  There seems to be enough cause to have an article like List of Blackpool shipwrecks, where you can spin off the data and organise it there, replacing that long section in the Blackpool article with a tidy summary of shipwrecks, their history and impact on Blackpool, and a link off the the comprehensive list. Benea (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Benea, I really mean lists of shipwrecks going back to the 1880s and earlier. most years from the 1890s have a list already. I'd say that if all shipwrecks before 1880 were added to a list for their respective years there could be quite an expansion there. Will consider splitting the Blackpool shipwrecks subject to consensus being reached to do that. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to stand in your way.  If there are lists going back the 1890s it seems logical to extend it back to the 1880s, if you believe that its a worthwhile exercise.  By all means expand away, this is a paperless encyclopaedia. Benea (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of shipwrecks by years 

message: Have run out of sources to consult to try to establish the early history of this ship.  The issue is that we are not 100% sure that the Gothenburg ship that we have a history for until about 1857 is the same ship that was bought in 1862 and sent to Australia.  Futhermore, there was a name change at some point to and from Celt(I) in this period that complicates things.  Have exhausted the online sources - so if anyone happens to have any reference material about this ship, the info would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SS Gothenburg]] - ambiguous early history 

message: Hey all, I wanted to draw your attention to a situation on the pages for the Gato-, Balao-, and Tench-class fleet submarine pages.  I think it's generally considered appropriate for an article for a museum ship to contain a link to the museum's web site, if available.  However, yesterday an anonymous user added a full list of Balao-class museum ships to the Balao-class article.  This was reverted by a bot on linkspam objections.  Now, a new user is adding the list of links to the three fleet boat class articles, and has been reverted in the Balao-class article.  What do you think about this?  I kind of lean toward a well-formatted neutrally-written list of links to museum ships being a reasonable thing to have, but I would appreciate your opinions. TomTheHand (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link is appropriate for the article on the specific boat, not on the class page, just have the class page have a table or something just listing the museum ships out of the class. -MBK004 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of links to museum ships on the class page is fine by me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet submarine museum links 

message: USS Achelous (ARL-1) is apparently using a deprecated infobox, can someone switch out the old infobox with the new one? Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, look on the talk page of the article. We have a template there saying what you just said . There is quite a backlog of articles without infoboxes and using depreciated ones, see: :Category:Ship articles without infoboxes and :Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion. -MBK004 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I was unaware of the backlog, I thought that this article may have simply slipped through the cracks (thats usually the case over at MILHIST anyway), hence the message here. Sorry, I'll be more careful about that in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mention it Tom. I'd also like to apologize, because my reply seems a little bit over-the-top, since you were unaware of the backlog. I may make an announcement in the MILHIST infobox conversion page about this. -MBK004 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Respectively: Don't worry about it and that sounds like a good idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal, I'll make the announcement shortly. -MBK004 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Announced on WT:MILHIST and the specific MILHIST conversion talk page. -MBK004 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey, Woody, for the benefit of all of us in the U.S., how much can we deduct from our taxes for a depreciated infobox? ;-) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit, depending on how much creative accounting you feel like doing. I would say 1 of your fine American cents should do it. ;) Woody (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Has anyone ever tried to fix an error in NVR? Their FAQ seems to indicate they only accept official requests. Specifically I was looking at the USS Chicago (SSN-721) article and NVR's (SSN-721) commission date says October 27, 1986, but images I've found (:Image:Harold Washington at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721).jpg for example) and the ships history page differ. Normally I would discount the DoD image caption since they've proven unreliable in the past, but the ships page and the dozens of images convinced me that the correct date is 27 September 1986. Google news search for 1986 backs the Sept date as well. Has anyone ever asked them to correct a date and what was the result? Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Inquiry" may not mean the same thing as "correction". It sounds as though they welcome corrections, so why don't you send them your evidence? No harm trying. Gatoclass (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update 2, I did receive a reply from the webmaster saying the request has been forwarded to the NVR custodian for review. It still hasn't been corrected, but maybe at some point it will be. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NVR error question 

message: :Category:Ship articles without infoboxes is another maintenance category that is currently bulging with articles. There are a lot of ship class articles and civilian ships without infoboxes. I've been doing a few of the USS per day but the total count keeps growing; currently 790. If we all did 1-2 per day the numbers would hopefully decline. --Brad (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I've been tagging about 100 to 200 articles a day with either  or . -MBK004 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another category that will keep growing: :Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion. With the unassessed category fluctuating from empty to one or two and the unassessed importance under 300, these infobox categories are next up. -MBK004 00:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with you tagging; they need to be done. Some of the articles I've fixed have been in WP over two years without boxes. It's also a good time to freshen up the references etc. --Brad (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship articles without infoboxes 

message: I was looking at the photo included in  and noticed that it copyrighted but anyone is free to use it "provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed" (quote from image page). It doesn't look to be attributed at all in the stub template. Should this be a concern, or am I being too picky about it? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that you can click on it and see the source is considered adequate attribution; many other pictures on Wikipedia have similar licenses and don't include attribution at the spot they're used. TomTheHand (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Liberty-ship-stub}} 

message: There do not seem to be adequate conventions for the way naval ship lists are named. For example, there is a convention that countries come last. Thus List of ships of Canada rather than List of Canadian ships. I would assume that this would extend to navies as well, thus List of ships of the Canadian Navy, rather than List of Canadian Navy ships. However, because this had not been explicitly set out, the actual naming of navy ship lists is an inconsistent mess.
An exceptionally bold editor has recently renamed many of the world's major navy ship lists in alignment with the second option, for example List of Canadian Navy ships. The issue extends well beyond this to many other navy ship lists, for example List of frigates of the Royal Navy verses List of Royal Navy frigates. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have transferred this discussion point to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for naval ship lists 

message: May I get some assistance with List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy? The top few lines in the history should explain what's going on. --Brad (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a warning for civility on the IP's talk page, but this needs to be taken to the talk page quickly before 3RR comes into play. -MBK004 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy 

message: On the Virginia class cruiser article I had interpreted the "Total ships completed=" field and other like it to mean a number was needed there and not a list of ships. It makes more sense to me that we would not want to list ships in the class in the infobox, especially since there is already a table with all the units listed. Ticonderoga class cruiser is an example of having too many ships listed in an infobox. It doesn't have a fancy table like the Virginia class article, but it has a template at the base of the article linking each ship. The "Total ships active=" and "Total ships retired=" fields should have numbers in them or maybe list one unique ship in the class. They should not be a list of 20+ ship names. I can imagine larger examples like Arleigh Burke class destroyers or Knox class frigates would have to use numbers because of the size. The docs for the template don't say what goes in that field, so I thought I'd ask here. An example of what I recommend is Spruance class destroyer where the units in the class are listed in a table and the infobox lists numbers. A user has taken it upon themselves to replace numbers with names in several class articles and I wanted to make sure we were on the same page before I reverted them to numbers. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the names are inappropriate, it should be numbers. There's generally a template at the bottom of the page with all the ships in the class anyhow - or there should be. Infoboxes are long enough already without listing the individual ships there. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I've always interpreted the fields in question to require just a number, not the names of individual ships. As Gatoclass states, that's what the template at the bottom of the article is for. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed - the infobox should contain counts, not a list.  The actual list of ships should be in a navbox template at the bottom of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all (though I think I may have done it the other way in the past). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class list in infobox 

message: I have a reference book (in English) on Norddeutscher Lloyd ships that, in referring to passenger capacity, talks variously of First, Cabin, and Second classes but also 'Tweendeck class. It seems obvious to me that 'Tweendeck is short for Between Deck, but I'm not really sure it means in a passenger context. Would Tweendeck in this case be another name for steerage? Something else? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that a tweendeck usually refers to an intermediate level between the floor and ceiling of a deck - but I've only ever heard of it in a cargo ship context, where the tweendeck is used sort of as an intermediate stacking area above the main floor.  I suppose if a ship hold (or steerage) area was tall enough to permit it, a tweendeck could be used to increase the occupancy of the deck.  But that's just a guess, I have no deffinite understanding of how the term would apply in a passenger setting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found several websites mentioning it in a cargo context as well. I did, however, find a website that had information on some of the same ships mentioned in the book, and the website used steerage (rather than tweendeck), so absent any other explanation, I'll just use steerage, the more common term. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a book stashed away somehwere that explains how "steerage passengers stored in the 'tweendeck" (not a direct quote obviously), so steerage is probably what is meant with it. Unrelatedly, good to see people working on NDL articles. -- -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweendeck 

message: I took an interest in this ship name because it figures in one of the tales around Gassy Jack Deighton, who captained a steamboat of this name and various others in the 1860s on the Lower Fraser (Victoria/New West to Yale or Douglas).  An illustration in a book by Olga Ruskin, The Gassy Jack Story, shows the steamboat approaching yale, with what looks like Jack in the wheelhouse.  So I looked it up on http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca and got a whole bunch of photos....from the salvage of a ship in Esquimalt that was a different kind of vessel; a little more digging on google and it turns out in this period, I'm unsure before or after the salvage/repair, as an immigration vessel to/from Australia - and was the boat that took Jack London to the Klondike....a little more digging yet and it comes up on the T2 Tanker page where it says the SS Umatilla of that period was built by the navy then (World War II).  So - three different vessels?  Or just one hull?  Any marine history detectives out there?  Can't really start even a stub until I know how many there were....Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this and this which mention the gold rush-era Umatilla, which apparently is the same one that was salvaged at Esquimalt and which must be the immigration vessel for Australia.....so could it still be that later served/ was transformed into a T2 Tanker?  Is there a WWII ship resgistry online which could sort this out?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think what you've stumbled across is three different vessels (at least). Inconvenient though it may be to us, many ships out there have had similar or duplicate names. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[SS Umatilla]]''?  Help invited 

message: Can someone point me to the location where the style guideline for "she" vs. "it" (in reference to ships) is discussed? Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: or see  ClemMcGann (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion dates to 2004, and there have been many since. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74#Military History Manual of Style amendment is the most recent discussion. Maralia (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of "She"-vs.-"it" style guideline? 

message: Could someone please handle the external links being added to ship-related articles by the single purpose account ? They are links to a blog for reporting pollution from ships; the blog has been in existence for a whole 5 days and has no redeeming value as an external link. Appreciate if someone could deal with this; I'm in the middle of a bunch of FA reviews. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: Hi guys, I've recently rewritten HMS Cardiff (D108), I'd like to get it up to an FA standard so I've put it up for a peer review here. I'd greatly appreciate any contributions you guys could make to it, or if not it'd just be nice if you could take some out time to read it and let me know what you thinks :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for HMS Cardiff (D108) 

message: Because of a recent cut-and-paste move of Marine (military), I've opened a dicussion on the article's fate. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Marine (military). Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine (military) 

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#DWT about standardizing deadweight tonnage usage.  In a nutshell, DWT can be used to express deadweight in tons (long tons) and tonnes (metric tons).  If this kind of discussion floats your proverbial boat, please chime in.  Cheers. HausTalk 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings up another issue.  The new infobox contains fields for both tonnage and displacement.  While that has reduced some of the confusion surrounding gross tons (volume), some displacement fields are now being filled by DWT, and maybe other measures as well (net?).  Those also are not displacment.  It may be preferable, where figures exist, to put them all in tonnage (e.g., x gross tons, y dwt, z net), and leave displacement out.  Kablammo (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you mentioned this, I've noticed DWT in the displacement field for well over 100 ship articles.  I assume displacement is meant to be "Heavy ship displacement" i.e., displacement when loaded to her draft marks?  Cheers. HausTalk 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The displacement field is intended to hold any figure that can be accurately called "displacement", whether that be light, full load, or any other measure; the load figure should be specified with the displacement where available. TomTheHand (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadweight tonnage standardization 

message: Need some help from a more experienced admin than myself:
I've discovered a move on the talk page of  (talk) and Talk:USS Ranger (CVA-61) (which is now a redirect in article space with a stand-alone talk page). Anyone want to tackle this? -MBK004 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It took a little searching for the correct procedure, but I've taken care of merging the pages. For future reference, you can find it here: Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I knew there was something out there, but forgot where. -MBK004 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut-and-paste move 

message: I drafted a new "Template:DANFSsection" to provide a suitable section-leading DANFS notice, now applied in the article USS Pampanito (SS-383).  It requires two arguments, the DANFS article name and its URL, and yields a small-size notice for use at the top of a section, and also yields a footnote for the reference list of the article.
I wonder, could anyone comment on the template, as used in the Pampanito article now? 
I am just having a little trouble getting the footnote to appear properly, but I am sure this can be fixed.  Help from someone more skilled in Mediawiki would be appreciated.
sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I see an article that started with DANFS material and is now a mixture of both DANFS and anon edited or unsourced material, I figure out what parts are DANFS and add standard reference tags on that material. Most of the time it's just one per paragraph or section if its all DANFS and put  next to the unknown material that is not sourced by DANFS. I think I tried this on USS Constellation (CV-64). I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to add a section header such as the one described above. Footnotes are made for this purpose and are non-obtrusive to the reader. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: All due respect, doncram, but what on earth are you thinking here? If I were to visit WP:NRHP, post a page-long braindump describing why I'm still unhappy with longstanding practice and policy after failing to gain a consensus for change, and offer up a new template for NRHP use that sidesteps existing policy because I'm just not happy with the status quo, I imagine I would be directed to the nearest (historic) bridge and encouraged to leap. This is a policy issue, and as such I truly appreciate being advised of relevant discussion taking place in policy venues, but it would be extremely premature to adopt your template as a solution before even a handful of people agree if there is a problem. Maralia (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur.  The use of the DANFS template is in line with current standards and practices.  If best practice changes then we can look at different templates.  Its premature at best and at the worst seems like using this to subvert the standing conventions over a Point of View to be attempting to submit this for consideration now.  On a side note, it think it's somewhat obtrusive and I really can't see any precedent for anything like this anywhere in wikipedia beyond the standard maintenance templates.  All the more reason why consensus is needed well before we begin to debate individual templates. Benea (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur as well. This is a policy issue, the new template is obtrusive and I cannot think of precedent as well. Also, just because you don't like the outcome of previous conversations, you decide to circumvent policy and make your own, seems rather Pointy to me and I usually AGF to the extreme. -MBK004 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the appropriateness of such an approach (quite a stretch, in my opinion), the template itself doesn't generate its footnote correctly, anyway. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I guess no one likes it. :(  I can see why there could be policy issues about broadening attribution template use, to some new non-encyclopedic source, say, but I don't see why a narrower DANFS template would be a policy problem.  If the general DANFS template is okay, stating that any text in an entire article might be from DANFS, how could it not be okay to state that any text in just one section is from DANFS?  It happens to fit the Pampanito article, where all the DANFS material was in one section, and where there were statements outside that section which were implied to be supported by the general DANFS disclaimer.  Obtrusiveness of appearance could be an issue, but perhaps that could be lessened by formatting differently into a box like tags leading articles usually are.  Oh well.  I have never been referred to that Pointy article before.  I'll go read it carefully now though, and contemplate what on earth i have been thinking.  Hopefully no real harm is done :) doncram (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New DANFS section template available 

message: In an article I just finished, , I noticed that the fields in the ship infobox are pushed much further to the right than usual, with a lot of empty space in the middle, making them look squashed against the side of the page. This does not seem to be happening on other ship pages. Anyone know what the problem might be? Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless something was done since you posted, I'm not really seeing anything unusual about the infobox here. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not seeing anything unusual either; could be something wrong with your browser or somesuch. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I suspected it might be something to do with my browser, I've noticed looking back through a number of different articles that the whitespace between the field name and the field itself is varying from article to article, and I've never noticed that before. But I guess if the article is appearing normal to other users, that's the main thing. Hopefully this problem will rectify itself on my PC eventually. Thanks for the feedback guys. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is weird 

message: A WikiGraphist recently upgraded the USCG Ensign from  to .  In addition to being scalable, with better detail, the colors in the USCG seal have been corrected.  Compare with official USCG website images (1), (2), (3).  Due to superior appearance and corrected color, I've replaced GIF with SVG in this and other pages. JonWee (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New image is much improved over the old one. Thanks for pointing that out. --Brad (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USCG Ensign upgraded from GIF to SVG