Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6

message: A user () has recently created a page for the WWII era Japanese Akizuki class destroyers in order to disambiguate it from a more modern Akizuki class used by the Japanese Self-Defense Force.  This seems reasonable, and was important as there were links that meant the older class that were being sent to the newer one. I'm not sure if there is a precedent or naming guideline in that case. However, the category name he used for the old class he changed to "IJN Akizuki class destroyers".  As far as I know, "IJN" or "HIJNS" or whatever are apocryphal and not to be used as tites (hence "Japanese destroyer Akizuki" rather than "IJN Akizuki").  Am I correct in thinking this?  If so, how should the category be renamed?  Is there any sort of precedent for this (two like-named classes)? - Nakamura2828 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is precedent for duplicate class names; we have used a (year) to disambiguate. I'm drawing a blank as to specific examples, but there are several. You are correct about our (non)usage of IJN and HIJNS—Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships is the convention, and :Category:Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy demonstrates usage. Maralia 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which year is supposed to be used? The date the first ship in the class was ordered, laid-down, launched, or commissioned, or the year the schematics were drawn up for the class (is it even possible to find this)?. - Nakamura2828 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The year that the first ship in the class was launched should be used.  See King George V class battleship for an example of this in action. TomTheHand 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so "Akizuki class destroyer (Imperial Japanese Navy)" --> "Akizuki class destroyer (1942)".  I'll start moving things - Nakamura2828 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Nakamura!  If you need any help (for example, if any moves are obstructed and need to be handled by an admin), let us know. TomTheHand 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial Japanese Navy naming question 

message: As noted before , when assessing articles, I like to also add in the banners of any other relevant WikiProjects.  While reviewing the assessment instructions for , I noticed that this project included a Dab or Disambig class for use on disambiguation pages.  Intrigued, I tried plugging "class = dab" into our banner and was surprised to see that it worked (however it did not have an associated category).  Since our project literally has thousands of disambiguation pages, in a fit of BOLDness, I went ahead and fully enabled this 'hidden' feature by creating  and linking it in to the  parser. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing Dab-class assessment fully enabled in project banner 

message: I have created :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of ships.
To add a ship to the list add to the talk page of the article .
If the ship is mainly found in one country add a second option |in=location. Traveler100 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thanks!!  (Maralia will not be surprised to know that in addition to adding tags for multiple WikiProjects, when I do an article assessment, I also add things like this requested photo template too!)  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, you are the kind of guy I'd love to have do my taxes - and hate to have audit them. Maralia 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting photographs 

message: I noticed a bunch of articles edited by User:Malo today, which he changed from using  to , a new template he apparently made today. I'm baffled - I thought we had a clear consensus, for months now at least, to use flags (ensigns) rather than jacks. Am I nuts, or did I miss a conversation? Maralia 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that most definitely should not be happening.  I've redirected  to . TomTheHand 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malo might not be aware of the consensus: he may believe he's done the right thing. Perhaps a word from a kindly person ... Folks at 137 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While it's true that differences between jacks are more visible, I feel using the jack is artificial and not indicative of the flag the ship is usually flying.  It generally only flown while the ship is not underway, while the ensign is flown whether underway or not.  Moreover, I just don't consider it to be a big advantage that the stars in the jack are bigger.  Yes, it's easier to tell the difference between jacks, but since jacks aren't indicative of what the ship usually flies, how is that helpful? TomTheHand 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I rarely (never?) add/edit/remove flags from articles, I have to say that I agree with Malo on this issue.  While the naval flags of other nations often changed considerably between eras (compare  with ), the evolution of the USN ensign is virtually imperceptible at this size (compare the ensign of the first   with that of the second  ). --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the Canadian Blue ensign example, just to be difficult, that was actually used as a jack; Dominion and Commonwealth navies flew the white ensign, with the "local" ensign being used as a national identifier and flown as a jack. It was really only Dominion / Commonwealth government service vessels that would use the local flag as the ensign. Therefore, it is possible to say "only use ensigns" and get around it as the ensign was actually being flown as a jack! Emoscopes Talk 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, trying to wrap my brain around that makes my head hurt.  Did I mention that I rarely if ever add flags to articles?  I can admit that the largest reason is because even after reading the relevant articles on jacks/ensigns/etc., I still do not understand the differences and/or when the various flags should be used.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But we can't exactly go and have a different convention for USN from the rest of the world. Well, we can, but it would lead to even more confusion. -- Kjet 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think consistency is an important point.  I don't think we should use ensigns for some navies and jacks for others depending on which looks better.  We should be applying one rule to all articles.  The fact that it's difficult to tell the difference between various US ensigns just doesn't matter to me.  I think having the flag that best represents what the ship actually flew all the time is a way higher priority than being able to count the stars. TomTheHand 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To me, the flag indicates the nation for which the ship operated, and is merely yet another indicator of the era. The decommission date is listed a mere handful of lines below it in the infobox; the lead of an article usually indicates the era in which it operated; and mousing over the flag image (presuming you have a status bar in your browser) shows you the exact number of stars in the ensign/jack. Aren't we splitting hairs here? Maralia 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick with consistency on articles, and use ensigns in all cases. It makes little practical sense to have one rule for one navy and another for all the rest. Martocticvs 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that I am arguing for the use of different rules for different articles.  Me, the supreme advocate for The One Simple, Consistent Rule Set.  Did the sun stop burning or the laws of gravitation repeal themselves?  Perhaps my wife should go buy a lotto ticket.  Regardless, I should note that I am willing to recant my heretical objections and return to formation.  --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure what this achieves. The point of any flag in ship articles is as a visual indication of nationality and period (significant for, eg, 20th century Germany and USSR/ Russia). One's enough and there's opposition to showing flags at all. For flag enthusiasts, perhaps the evolution of ensigns and jacks can be shown in flag and naval articles. Folks at 137 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag templates 

message: I have just recently failed Christopher Columbus (whaleback) according to the GA criteria. Just though I'd give this project a head's up. VanTucky Talk 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  failed GA nom under the scope of this project 

message: The article about the Vasa has been nominated for Good Article status. Input and insights or even reviews from members of this project would be very much appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vasa (ship)]] for GAC 

message: This caught me by surprise ... was anyone else aware that we apparently have a dedicated  infobox ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Words aren't even coming to me. TomTheHand 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try "arg!" or "headdesk ... thwap!"  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that this morning - haven't gotten around to looking at it because I am still fixing all the footer templates which were "improved" by removing all italics formatting when nameless.editor was 'updating to use navbox template'. I can't believe someone would be so irresponsible as to not fix them after their errors were pointed out. GRRRRRR! Maralia 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After going out of town for the weekend, it took me a while to make it far enough up my watchlist to discover the new super deluxe infobox (dang my employer making me work!).  As to your frustration with footer fixing, I know the feeling ... but to keep from getting burnt-out while working on a big, monotonous task like that, I often take 'breaks' and whore myself out to other tasks and/or projects.  Now that I think about it, I believe I have been on a break from working on our Kategory Konfusion for at least a year now.  I only wish the same avoidance technique worked on my wife's honey-do list.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetitive, boring work is one thing - work created by someone else's errors they can't be bothered to fix is another thing entirely. Maralia 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We call that "nega-work" or "Wally work," but either way, you are my hero for fixing it!!  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another ships infobox? 

message: First off, I would like to applaud  for BOLDly archiving this talk page.  Up until recently we used to have years of talk messages here, which made the page load hella-slow on the dial-up intar-web I use at home (yeah, that is one of the advantages of living way out in the country).  However I would like to advocate a slightly less aggressive archive schedule as more than once I have found myself wanting to post an update or reply to a message from a week or two ago, only to discover that the thread had already been archived.  As such, I would like to propose that we only archive threads that have been inactive for at least a month (so for example, on October 1st, we would then archive all threads that had not been replied to since August 31st or earlier).  Thoughts?  Opinions?  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Should Warrior (1832) be at Warrior (ship)?  Benea 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was not a ship.  US steamboat Warrior (1832) is a possibility.--Toddy1 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just following what seemed to be the protocol on other boat and ship articles, was this incorrect? I have never created an article about any type of water vehicle before. IvoShandor 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following our naming conventions - "But when the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses as usual. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name", and the example used is "Santa Maria (ship) (compare Santa Maria)".  We would use the prefix if she had one.  So SS Warrior would be the first choice I think, if that was how she would have been known.  Failing that, it would be Warrior (ship), Warrior (steamboat) or Warrior (1832 steamboat), or maybe even Warrior (1832 ship), depending on how much disambiguation was needed.  From interpreting the guidelines, I think 'SS Warrior', or failing that, 'Warrior (steamboat)' are the two best alternatives.  I think we should be making clear in the title that the Warrior in question is a vessel, rather than some other alternative.  Am I right?  Benea 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The outcome of this may also affect Enterprise (1814). Benea 12:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warrior (ship) would not be correct, and would most likely be accessed by someone looking for one of the HMS Warriors.  Why not leave Warrior (1832) as is?  ('"First, do no harm" . . . or "when in doubt, do nothing.")  Kablammo 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be for moving it to anything but Warrior (steamboat) or something similar. I don't know that SS is appropriate, (or is it?) because I have never seen it referred to that way. Originally, I was going to name it "Warrior (steamboat)" until I saw other articles used the year to dab. I don't think there is any conceivable way someone could arrive at this article and not have been actively searching for it. Especially since Warrior is a dab page. But, of course, whatever is best, or whatever folks think is best is what I would defer to. IvoShandor 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Warrior goes to what you think, a warrior that fights wars, but the dab is linked prominently. Just to append and correct what I actually meant to say. IvoShandor 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) - I don't particularly mind.  I think it would be helpful to make clear in the title that it as a ship/vessel/boat/whichever you prefer as opposed to anything else an article titled 'Warrior' might be.  We disambiguate firstly by type and secondly by year, so it might be good to keep to that convention in this case.  But I don't have any really strong feelings on the subject. I think Ivo's original suggestion of Warrior (steamboat) is the clearest, most accurate and helpful, and most in keeping with our guidelines.  Anyone opposed to moving it there? Benea 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not here.  Either can link to the other.  Kablammo 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just moved it, it's now at Warrior (steamboat).  Hopefully everyone is happy (or at least non-committal) about this.  I agree it's a good article, well written and sourced.  We could use a lot more like them!  Well done for all your hard work in this area.  Benea 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right to me. Glad to see an article about an early steam warship! I really must get on with finishing User:The Land/Wooden steam warship - please feel free to add stuff about American steamers if you want to! The Land 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick question... 

message: The USS Mettawee (AOG-17) has been misnamed the USS Mattawee (AOG-17) in Wikipedia -- appears to be a typographical error.  I've added a comment to the article's talk page, along with rationale for the typo claim. I know Wikipedia is DIY, and considered attempting to correct the article myself, but am not an experienced Wikipedian and balked at the thought of changing an article title, associated class article title and internal references.  My thanks to the many Wikipedians who have made Wikipedia an excellent reference for historical and contemporary ships. -- Jonathan Weesner 74.74.67.49 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have much else to do today, so I made the shift.  The reasoning looks sound, DANFS lists her as Mettawee and half the article actually refers to her as Mettawee.  I corrected any occurances of Mattawee in the text, so hopefully that's the matter sorted.  I'm a Royal Navy man myself, so if there's some mistakes I've made and she is actually Mattawee, I'm happy to accept correction.  Benea 10:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnamed Ship 

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. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Greek Ship}}]] 

message: Members of this project may wish to take note of a CfD that has been opened on .  See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2#Category:Disambiguation lists of ships for more details.  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two CfDs of note for this project 

message: center|500px
What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.
Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help 

message: Can any of the experts on this wikiproject help....Has there been more than one ship called "The London"? The article Rapparee, Ilfracombe discusses the wreck of "The London" in 1796, & see , but the article it links to The London says it sank in the Bay of Biscay in 1866. Any help or explanation appreciated.— Rod talk 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship was (probably) the London rather than "The London". GraemeLeggett 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although not directly related, there have also been several (commercial) ships called The Londoner (none have a Wiki article as far as I know). -- Kjet 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ships called "The London" 

message: I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, and i may be out of line for bringing it up, but when I was surfing through the list of articles for what links to your project I found an a-class review that no one from here has commented on here. At first I thought it was for the armed service group, but on closer inspection it says ships at the top; so i guess thats your project. It seems abadoned, hence why i bring it up; it ought to be commented on or closed or something; it looks wierd just sitting there unused. -- Wendy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.227.61 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Um,

message: This article has passed its Military History WikiProject A-class review. I did a quick check of all of our articles and this is currently the only A-class article in our project scope. Next stop Featured Article?-MBK004 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)? ;) Comments are welcome. Woodym555 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ... man Tom doesn't rest for long. It just finishes the A-class review and he puts it up as a FAC almost immediately.-MBK004 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it is a quick, never stopping system (well, until it gets to FA). No rest for the wicked! Woodym555 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Kentucky (BB-66)]] is now an A-class article 

message: There are currently two Featured Article Candidates that come under the purview of this project in conjunction with the Maritime Warfare Task Force of the Military History WikiProject.They are currently rated as A-class and also are the only A-class articles under our purview.
They are:
* USS Kentucky (BB-66) review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)
* Pre-dreadnought review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pre-dreadnought
Your participation and any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, MBK004 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current FACs in the scope of this project 

message: Two categories for US military ship classes are being considered for merging/renaming here. Assistance with determining at which title the categories should be located would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums  

message: would you guys assess the class and importance of the newly created article Sacramento class fast combat support ships? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rated as start and high respectively.  Feel free to jump up and down on me if you disagree.  Benea 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If I asked nicely,

message: Check out :Image:Harnett County AGP-821.jpg.  The pink water is ... very odd.  I presume it is not a red tide or something similar, but I really have no idea what it is.  Any thoughts?  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mud or sand, perhaps, from the landing craft? - BillCJ 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be a sandbar or something similar its defiantly some kind of sediment in the water. MarVelo 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know where this is? Could be river outflow, depositing sediment. Or could be she's leaking oil.  Trekphiler 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleached coral?  Does anyone know her history - Did she ground? Viv Hamilton 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the vessel is an LSV designed to beach and then discharge vehicles.  It may be aground with the engines running astern waiting for the tide to lift it clear.Jmvolc (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pink tinge extends to the decks and stern.  Something to do with the colour of the photograph itself? Benea (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking more closely - the pink tinge extends from the decks, down the stern on the port side and into the sea, where it spreads forward and off the starboard, significantly not to her port or stern.  Something being washed from her decks, off the starboard of her stern (note the white colour where it enters the water - splashing, rather like a waterfall?) where the current carries it off from the ship, washing it forward and to the right.  Sound plausible? Benea 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially I thought it could be something being washed off, but I could not figure out what (a) would be pink, and (b) that there would be so much of it, the stuff is being washed off the stern and the area forward of the helipad, especially since the ship is over 300 ft long. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this picture? 

message: A.B. posted about this AFD on MILHIST a little while ago, and I think it's of interest to us.  Quote:
* Are commissioned naval vessels, including ocean-going tugs, inherently notable? --A. B. (talk)  13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: defenitly notable, why? i don't remember but they deserve recongtion. especialy the crew of the tugs they would want their ship in this to. I think this project is more of momorile to the crew than the ships. right? hey does any one have a yamato banner or how-to so ican put one on my user page? major yamato class fan and i don't know anything about the anime so thats not why i like it i like it because i think it should be one of the "seven wonders of the world" in ship building and engenering.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)]] 

message: Can someone with a bit more experience in this field take a look at Trip pilots?  At the moment it seems to be little more of a thinly veiled attack page, but perhaps something could be made of it?  Benea 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I agree with your assessment of the article in question and have nominated it for speedy deletion via the G10 criteria.  --Kralizec! (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: The A-Class review for USS Illinois (BB-65) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[USS Illinois (BB-65)]] now open 

message: ===Categories===
Currently there's a little bit of a categorization mess between the above names.  I believe our category structure should use "amphibious warfare vessels", as I think it's a general term that I'm more comfortable putting on ships that support amphibious operations, but aren't actually directly involved in amphibious assaults.  I'd like to perform some merges, but I wanted to make a quick post and make sure there isn't any opposition.  If nobody objects, I'll put up some CFMs and put links here.  If there are any other names that people might like, let's talk about it decide on one now, so that the merges don't wind up failing because everyone has a title they would rather use.TomTheHand 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Gatoclass 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why 'vessels'? Maralia 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm... ah... hmm.  Well, um.  It seems to be in pretty wide use already?  I wonder how many of those are my fault.  I really don't have a good reason, except perhaps that the name would be more appropriate for vessels that aren't really ships. TomTheHand 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's logical for amphibious craft, but yes, I was sneakily raising the larger point. I'm planning to rename 'vessel' to 'ship' on categories where the broader term is not necessary. Maralia 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I have no problem with renaming 'vessel' to 'ship' when the broad term isn't necessary, but do you or anyone else object to its use in this particular case, since I think small craft should be included in the above categories as well? TomTheHand 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No issue with vessel here. However, the mere existence of :Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States makes me want to tear out my hair—aren't these all Navy ships?  The only valid reason I can see for this cat to exist as named would be if there were subcats of Navy, Army, etc ships in it. As they are all Navy, why not rename directly to :Category:United States Navy World War II amphibious warfare vessels, thereby resulting in a cat that indicates the holy trifecta of navy, era, and type? Maralia 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire era structure relies on country names rather than navy names; there are no navy-era cats whatsoever.  I strongly favor this (and am one of the merge-the-damn-navy-cats people) because I think it's much easier for people to browse categories when they don't have to think "Wait, what was Italy's navy called during World War II again?" TomTheHand 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That all seems fine to me as well. If they're not ships, why should they be categorized as such? Merge/rename away. Parsecboy 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would probably go so far as to say that the article should be renamed to "amphibious warfare vessel", and a new article at "amphibious assault ship" should be created at some point in the future. -- TomTheHand (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibious assault ships vs. amphibious warfare vessels 

message: Currently there's a little bit of a categorization mess between the above names.  I believe our category structure should use "amphibious warfare vessels", as I think it's a general term that I'm more comfortable putting on ships that support amphibious operations, but aren't actually directly involved in amphibious assaults.  I'd like to perform some merges, but I wanted to make a quick post and make sure there isn't any opposition.  If nobody objects, I'll put up some CFMs and put links here.  If there are any other names that people might like, let's talk about it decide on one now, so that the merges don't wind up failing because everyone has a title they would rather use.TomTheHand 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Gatoclass 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why 'vessels'? Maralia 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm... ah... hmm.  Well, um.  It seems to be in pretty wide use already?  I wonder how many of those are my fault.  I really don't have a good reason, except perhaps that the name would be more appropriate for vessels that aren't really ships. TomTheHand 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's logical for amphibious craft, but yes, I was sneakily raising the larger point. I'm planning to rename 'vessel' to 'ship' on categories where the broader term is not necessary. Maralia 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I have no problem with renaming 'vessel' to 'ship' when the broad term isn't necessary, but do you or anyone else object to its use in this particular case, since I think small craft should be included in the above categories as well? TomTheHand 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No issue with vessel here. However, the mere existence of :Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States makes me want to tear out my hair—aren't these all Navy ships?  The only valid reason I can see for this cat to exist as named would be if there were subcats of Navy, Army, etc ships in it. As they are all Navy, why not rename directly to :Category:United States Navy World War II amphibious warfare vessels, thereby resulting in a cat that indicates the holy trifecta of navy, era, and type? Maralia 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire era structure relies on country names rather than navy names; there are no navy-era cats whatsoever.  I strongly favor this (and am one of the merge-the-damn-navy-cats people) because I think it's much easier for people to browse categories when they don't have to think "Wait, what was Italy's navy called during World War II again?" TomTheHand 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That all seems fine to me as well. If they're not ships, why should they be categorized as such? Merge/rename away. Parsecboy 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: For a long time, I've thought the Amphibious assault ship article is a mess. THe Tarawa class amphibious assault ship page, for example, links to Amphibious assault ship, but instead of an aricle on the type of ships the LHA/LHDs are (large-deck ampibs), you get a noarrow opening definition of the ships, and the the article wanders all over discussing every type of amphibious warfare vessel. Is there any way we can address this? Perhaps the general information could go to Amphibious warfare vessel, with the Amphibious assault ship page covering LHDs, LHAs, LPH, LSDs, and those that are more properly called ships. THese are just my random opening thoughts - I wlecome any othe ideas/comments. - BillCJ 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably go so far as to say that the article should be renamed to "amphibious warfare vessel", and a new article at "amphibious assault ship" should be created at some point in the future. -- TomTheHand (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles

message: In the useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns, there's an ensign for the Luxembourg Merchant Navy. Luxembourg is landlocked. Is this ensign real? Folks at 137 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of landlocked countries at least Swizerland and Mongolia have (or have had) a merchant navy - so it's possible that the ensign is real. I'm not an expert though, so someone might know better. -- Kjet 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Luxembourg Merchant Navy?

message: *NOTE: This is a copy of a proposal on the Maritime History task force page talk page; replies should be posted there.
Bouncing off an idea from , would there be any interest in treating featured topics for ship classes by updating the class page and ship pages to FA status? It could help expand our featured topic selection, which would be benificial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Yesterday, I made a new post to last week's discussion on putting era cats onto class articles.  I had reconsidered the situation and am thinking that perhaps we should change the guideline.  I know most folks did not have a strong opinion on this, but I'd nevertheless like to ask that anyone interested check it out here. -- TomTheHand (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era cats on class articles 

message: A few months ago, I noticed that there was no article specifically about the USN LCAC. I've finally been able to knock one together at LCAC, with some good pics. My knowledge of the type is very limited, and I don't have the time right now to do anything deeper. If anyone would like to help expand the article, there are some ELs included that should help one get started. Also, the German de:Landing Craft Air Cushioned page is a good start for anyone who reads the language. Thanks for whatever you can do to help this often-overlooked type. - -- BillCJ (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LCAC article

message: User:Jackyd101 has recently been going around removing the :Category:Royal Navy ships of the line and :Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom from articles (eg HMS Albion (1763)) that also have a class category attached to them. As far as I am aware, it is normal for us to include the class category AND the type category in these cases - but I think particularly so when it comes to ships of the line as the concept of a class, although real, is nowhere near as defined as it is in the modern sense. I think it is more useful to the reader to have the type categories present on the articles as well as the class. Martocticvs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to put a type/country category onto every article, but you wind up with an overwhelming number of categories on ship articles, so the guideline is now to put it on the class category where possible and remove it from the ship articles.  You bring up a good point about ships of the line, so perhaps they should be an exception, but I don't think country cats should go on every single article.  List articles are a better way to provide people with a complete list of ships of a particular type. TomTheHand (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps that is best, then. There were a rather large number of ships of the line in total, so that list was already becoming quite long. Martocticvs (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class and type categories 

message: At the risk of asking a question discussed many times, what are the guidelines regarding the us of feminine personal pronouns for ships in regualr text (not in quotatations)? I've found no mention in the Project guidelines. I've always understood that formal ENglish used netral pronouns for inanimate objects, including ships. - BillCJ (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a lengthy discussion on the subject. There is one suggestion to use it instead of she there. --MoRsE (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an enormous can of worms to be opening.  Conventional English language use is to refer to inanimate objects as 'it', i.e. "I have a new desk, it is 5ft by 7ft."  Ships have long been a historical exception to this, with the argument that bestowing a name, when a ship is christened, bestows a gender, as with children, animals, etc.  So, "HMS Victory was Nelson's flagship.  She fought at..."  I think we take the first use of the pronoun as the guideline for that article, like when deciding on US/British English spelling on articles when there is no national basis for choosing one over the other.  Though sometimes the user who makes a major page expansion can set the precedent as well.  Following common usage means we tend towards 'she' rather than 'it'. Benea (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no MOS mandate for pronoun usage in reference to ships. Benea accurately described the consensus under which we operate here, not his 'personal opinion'. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I think I touched a nerve there. I understood what you asked, but I think you misunderstood my reply, which as Maralia has kindly pointed out, is not my personal opinion but what I thought was an accurate description of consensus on a subject that has been a bit too contentious so far to establish a sold MoS guideline. But I'm happy to take correction, if phrased in a slightly more pleasant way than your response was.  Benea (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:POINT ;-) TomTheHand (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to add WP:DICK, since you obviously won't allow me the use of sarcasm. :P - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As another linguistic group might say, "Very bad form sir. That's just not cricket." Benea (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who objected to my unpleasant resonses because of misunderstandings, I see you have no objection to exercising both towards me. I've been around here a lot longer than you, so I'm well familiar with the alphabet soup "experienced" editors like to use to intimidate others who disagree with them. If the rest of you will please refrain from piling on as he has, please stick to the actual discussion at hand, or don't say anything. - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm genuinely a bit confused.  At first I thought you were being a bit uncivil.  Then I thought you were joking.  Now I don't know what to think.  Should I be laughing or taking offense?  Help!  Computerspeak may be all very well but it means we can't use the normal British gestures like facial expressions, winks, or secret handshakes (my personal favourite).  I'll admit I'm a bit adrift at the moment.  Please insult me slightly more explicitly (references to tea or cricket will do) if that was your intention. pip pip, Benea (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I quite like alphabet soup.  Is that a bad thing? Benea (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Getting involved in a contentious issue such as this is not worth my time anymore. See this diff for an admin's attempt to edit war with me when he changed the pronouns already in the article, prompting my good-faith query here. Given this admin's quickness to edit war wih me on a French carrier article, I am certainly not going to correct the use of "his" on the Light aircraft carrier page for Spanish ships per this diff, even tho I believe it is wrong. Given the lack of clear consensus on the pronoun issue, I will no longer be changing any pronoun usages for ships in any articles, even if they don't match existing usage on that page. - BillCJ (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship pronoun usage

message: Does this article come under our scope? It is listed as a Featured Article on the project main-page, but about a week ago I looked at the article talk page and noticed that our banner was not there. Since it was listed on the main page I added the project banner there. Now I'm having doubts about if it belongs or not. Thoughts?MBK004 (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would say it belongs here.  While I wouldn't want every naval battle included in WP:SHIPS, this one seems to have been important in the history of ships Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we expand the scope of this project to include naval battles, this could be a very slippery slope as valid claims probably exist for virtually every naval battle.  Additionally this project's tight focus on individual ships and ship classes helps differentiate and keep us from being merged into the Maritime warfare task force of WikiProject Military history.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'd agree with that. Although a battle inherently involves ships, an article on a battle is not an article on a specific ship, or class of ship, or something fundamental to a ship, and so I think it falls outside our project's focus. --Martocticvs (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has objections, I'm going to be bold and remove our tag from the article's talk page and remove the reference from the project main page.-MBK004 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. WP:SHIPS should not expand into the territory of naval battles. The dividing line is probably a bit arbitrary, but there needs to be one somewhere. The Land (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Hampton Roads]] 

message: :Category:Seminole War ships is orphaned. Please can one of the ship experts find a home for it, or (if it's not needed, nominate it for renaming or deletion?  Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for the heads-up!  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Seminole War ships 

message: So that the members of this project may better recognize the outstanding efforts of their fellow members, I would like to propose the creation of a barnstar for WikiProject Ships!  Thoughts?  Opinions? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just under four hours remain to submit nominations!  Voting will begin in about five hours.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The proposal 

message: A question that came into mind when thinking of users who might possibly deserve this barnstar... does a user have to be a WP:SHIPS member in order to recieve "our" barnstar? Or can it be awarded to anyone who improves WP:SHIPS-related articles, even if s/he's not a member? -- Kjet (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine that anyone could award the barnstar to any editor who has made a significant contribution to ship articles.  With very few exceptions, barnstars are awarded on a very informal standing.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General discussion 

message: Voting begins at 01:00:01 GMT on 25 November 2007 utilizing the following guidelines:
* Voting runs for seven days and ends at 01:00:01 GMT on 2 December 2007.
* To avoid any potential ties or non-majority winners, instant-runoff voting is being used with each editor ranking their first, second, and third choices.
* Any registered Wikipedia editor who is a WikiProject Ships member may vote.
* Please be sure to follow canvassing guideline when discussing or courting potential voters.
Depending on the amount of "last minute" voting that takes place, I will announce the first ever WikiProject Ships Barnstar prior to 03:00:00 on 2 December 2007.  --Kralizec! (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: Tabulating voting results now ...  --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that we should be required to change the barnstar on a schedule.  If a new star is developed in the future and we all agree that it's better, we could certainly change, but we're not going to change every year just for the sake of changing.  I'm sorry that you don't like it, but it's the first choice of eight people, and no other star got more than one first choice vote. TomTheHand 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tom.  I don't like the idea of making an award obsolete.  What point would it serve?  If we come up with a new version that everyone loves much more than this one, then all well and good, but until then, the people have decided, so to speak.  Otherwise it's just change for change's sake.  Benea 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict). I'm not really into playing around with graphics, but I'm dissatisfied enough with this choice that I might actually try to come up with an alternative myself. Not that I'm planning to do so anytime soon however, as my list of planned Wikiprojects is more than long enough already. Gatoclass 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see anything to be gained by continually changing it. It would lose any significance it has if we were to do that. Like Tom says, if another one is created that we all agree is better, then we could consider a change then, but otherwise things would start to get very silly. Martocticvs 12:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My bad; thanks for reminding me to share with everyone!  I awarded our first barnstar to Maralia.  When she first joined the project, she boldly revised the main page (in retrospect, I have no idea why we kept the old, klunky one for so long), got our current assessment drive started, and kept us going at it with lots of encouragement.  Maralia has been a great collaborative force for the project, and has done a lot to really reinvigorate the entire project!  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just come back from a weekend away, and what a lovely surprise to find upon my return! Thank you for recognizing my little efforts to get more done around here by organizing things and cheerleading. It's not as fun and glamorous as writing articles, but I feel it needs to be done, and it's really gratifying to hear that it's appreciated. Thanks for thinking of me :) Maralia 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: After the discussion above, I've begun putting era categories onto class articles.  I like the result.  See :Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States for an example.  All the class articles are consolidated at the top and give a nice overview of what was in operation at the time.
I've been working my way along alphabetically, so I just finished :Category:Aircraft carrier classes and hit :Category:Amphibious assault ship classes.  I noticed that Gatoclass has been having class articles sort by type first, and then class name.  See :Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States for an example.  Note all of the "attack cargo ship"s grouped together, and all the "attack transport"s in a separate group.
I had been sorting by class name only, and I think I prefer doing it that way, so that it's one continuous alphabetical list instead of broken up by ship type.  However, I don't have strong feelings about it; I just happen to prefer looking at the information that way.  I wanted to bring it here and ask for everyone's two cents.  I know most people won't feel strongly, but I don't think this is an issue that needs long, logical, passionate arguments, just a quick opinion off the top of your head.
"Too long, didn't read" version:
*In era categories like :Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States, should we sort class articles alphabetically by name only, or by type and then by name?
I appreciate your input. TomTheHand (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the tl;dr version. I strongly prefer alpha by name; it's easier to remember and easier to browse. Maralia (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'll try to provide a tl;dr in the future :-P I know I tend to go on and on. TomTheHand (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I don't understand. TomTheHand (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd go with alphabetically throughout as well, I think. For the same reason as Kjet. Martocticvs (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: STRONGLY disagree. I tried this in the amphib. section already and it looks very messy. Much better and more logical to have them sorted by alpha AND type. Gatoclass (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to note that I'd also like to remove Attack transport, Landing Ship, Tank, and Attack cargo ship from that region of the category, so you'd only be looking at the names of classes.  I think that'd look reasonably clean. TomTheHand (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaarghh! Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, I don't think I have much objection to that. I don't think I put those articles in there, I just ended up sorting them because they were already there. But when you think about it, it doesn't really make much sense to have the "type" articles there, does it? Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting class articles 

message: Please check out this merge and weigh in.  It's related to last week's amphibious warfare vessel merges, but I missed it that time around.  Thanks!TomTheHand (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello everyone!  I hope that all members of WP:SHIPS from the U.S. had a happy Thanksgiving... and I hope that everyone else had a very nice Thursday :-) TomTheHand (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, your very kind to ask :) My thanksgiving was very good, and I am looking forward to spending time with the family over the long weekend. Happy Thanksgiving, and hears to many more to come :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Thursday was very much like any other Thursday, but thanks anyway! :p Martocticvs (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanksgiving was lovely, thanks—much more relaxing than the previous four days, which largely consisted of answering the question 'mommy can we eat the fancy pies yet?' Maralia (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancy pies ... ?  Tell us more!  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Thanksgiving! 

message: I don't belong to this WP, so I thought I would say high, as I've tagged a lot of articles for y'all while doing WP MH's drive, and ask a question.  Would Belle of Louisville and Great Steamboat Race fall under WP Ship's concerns?--Bedford (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belle of Louisville I would say certainly does, the race though I'm not so sure about. Martocticvs (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just visiting, plus a question