Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 2

message: Somebody has nominated the List of LSTs on AFD. I would appreciate it if those who feel they can would stop deletion of the list by voting for keeping it. David Newton 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of LSTs 

message: It occurred to me while reviewing some of the "source citing" discussion that it might be useful to have the reference sections of DANFS-based articles include a direct link back to the original text that is online at history.navy.mil these days. A template set up like  would make it easy to include both URL and printable information. I'm personally on an image drive, so won't have time to work on such a template, but thought I'd throw out the idea. Stan 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template idea for DANFS references 

message: I was wondering if there is a ship portal,now that these portals are becoming more common it would be a good way to attrack new people to this poject.It would also give people a nice overview.(The transport portal currently already links to cars/trains/aviation portals.
--213.224.243.109 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship portal

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: What do you think? To add it to your user page, type "" -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Many ship image pages (see example) contain: (1) the statement "This image is a temporary placeholder for articles(mostly those utilizing the table from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables) which still need a picture to illustrate them. You can help by uploading an image for any of the articles listed below under 'File links'"; followed by (2) much File History and File Links that seem irrelevant once an image is inserted. In inserting an image, one may therefore delete all that, right? -- Mccomb 12:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inserting an image 

message: We have an article on the X-1 Submarine, which was moved from USS X-1 on the grounds that she apparently wasn't commisioned. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships only refers to her being "placed in service" . We've had an email from an ex-crewmember, who referred to her as a commissioned sub; does anyone know for sure one way or the other? Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ex-crewmember is almost certainly mistaken.  Every Navy site refers to her as having been "placed in service" and none of them give her the "USS" prefix, including both DANFS and the NVR.  Contrary-wise, every site that mentions her "commissioning" or tacks "USS" on is an unofficial, amateur site. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'll pass that on if he gets back in touch. Is there a standard printed source other than the DANFS, like Colledge is for the RN, incidentally? Shimgray | talk | 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commisioned? 

message: I thought this might be the place with people with knowledge on the subject so if anyone can help take a look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Submarine#Plans_to_improve_the_article and help him out.
This is a pretty top level article so it might as well be the finest on wikipedia --Technosphere83 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone willing to help improve Submarine?

message: A couple of monthes ago someone rewrote a large chunk of the history for the carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) into a bullet form list of her accomplishments. Now I see the same thing has ben done to the carrier USS Intrepid (CV-11). I was under the impression that the history section for ships should be written in paragraph form and not in bullets. Is this a new layout for the carriers, or is this something that should be reverted when spotted? TomStar81 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting for carriers 

message: Hey guys,
I've been working on cleaning up :Category:Ship classes.  Kralizec! noticed what I was up to and suggested that I post about it here, since you guys might have suggestions or might offer some assistance.  Here's my game plan:
#Move articles from :Category:Ship classes to sub-categories based on the type of class (battleship, cruiser, etc).  This is essentially complete, and it was a bear.  I created sub-categories Amphibious assault ship, Coastal defense ship, Fast attack craft, Ferry, Mine warfare, and Patrol vessel.  I moved everything that fit into one of the above or pre-existing categories off of Category:Ship classes.  What remains would go into such a small category that I don't want to bother with it now.  Some classes fit into more than one category and so I listed them in each.
#On the sub-category pages, ensure that the ship class categories are listed (example :Category:Agano class cruisers under :Category:Cruiser classes), ensure that ship class main articles (example Agano class cruiser under :Category:Agano class cruisers) are listed under their categories, and remove ship class main articles from the sub-category pages.  See :Category:Aircraft carrier classes and :Category:Battleship classes to see what the end product looks like.  I may not do this for ships smaller than Cruisers, but then again I may.
#Find orphans.  For example, Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi was unique, but it should still be find-able under :Category:Aircraft carrier classes.  I created a cat for the Akagi class, which may be a no-no since there's currently just one article, but it fits in better in Category:Aircraft carrier classes now and I think one could write additional articles or categorize other things under Akagi.
I would appreciate any help or suggestions with the above tasks.  I think the end result is really good, and I previously felt that Category:Ship classes was haphazard and useless. TomTheHand 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the years there have been quite a few specialized amphibious ships (and classes). Many were developed during WWII, and most of these have been replaced by new ship types as thinking about amphibious warfare has changed. The complexity is probably well within the capability of Wikipedia to explain. I've got a lot of information about the various kinds of ships, but I'm not at all knowledgeable about how to go about categorizing things on Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind teaming up with someone on a project for classifying amphibious ships. Lou Sander 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lumped all amphibious ships into one category, :Category:Amphibious assault ship classes, but I could definitely see the need for sub-categorization.  Wasp is pretty darn different from an LST.  If you need a quick categorization tutorial, leave a message on my talk or check out Wikipedia:Category. TomTheHand 17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, Why are you going ahead and making changes that we have yet to reach consensus on? Namely, you've begun removing the ship class articles from the :Category:Fooship classes and instead putting them in the :Category:Fooship. A ship class is not a ship and shouldn't be in that category. Jinian 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of [[:Category:Ship classes]] 

message: I think we need to have a vote on this so that I can go ahead and implement it. Please sign your name under the option you favor.
Unique ships
One-off ships
* TomTheHand 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy. You should be looking for consensus; not trying to speed to an implementation. Jinian 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a vote for single ship designs or are you just being argumentative?  I AM looking for consensus here.  There have been few contributions to the discussion above, so I'm attempting to make it easier for people to give their input on the issue.TomTheHand 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can give people a bit more time. Or at least give the one guy you disagree with a chance to respond to you before rushing to a "vote" -- a process that, in general, is not implemented here. I just don't understand your urgency. Jinian 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say "in 48 hours I'm doing whatever the majority votes for."  I'm trying to make it easier for people to toss in their two cents, and there's no reason to interpret this as a rush.  I don't understand why you would rather criticize my process than offer an opinion. TomTheHand 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion on the subject. Seems a minor issue to me. However, I did read your "go ahead and implement" as a desire to just take a poll rather than to discuss. I'm in favor of discussion, as a general rule. If pressed, I'd say "unique" is a fine word and much better than phrase "one-off". But only if pressed. Jinian 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Unique" is a perfectly acceptable english word in common usage, which means that only one of the item in question, be it a ship or whatever, existed. The word contains no presumption of superiority, or indeed of inferiority, although for the record many unique warships have over the years failed to be repeated because of gross and obvious inferiority. The expression "one-off" is an ugly neologism for which the language has no current need.--Anthony.bradbury 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for 'unique' - it means what it says - it appears that we tend to 'tire' of words, over a period and have to invent new words or phrases (that often don't quite 'do it') - I loathe 'one-off'! Nothing like being definite - eh? :-) - Ballista 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus seems to be that 'unique' is the way to go.  When I get some time to start this project, that's what I'll do.  I do have to say that you're incorrect about "unique" having no presumption of superiority.  In its literal sense, you're correct that it simply means that there's only one of the object in question.  However, check dictionary.com].  You'll find that "unique" is sometimes used to mean "unusual", "extraordinary", or "unparalleled", which is not the impression we want to give.  I'm surprised that you've never heard "unique" used to mean "exceptional."  Maybe it's an American thing.  You also might like to try Googling "unique" and seeing how often it's used to imply rarity and exclusivity, rather than being used for its literal definition.  "One-off" dates back to the 1930s, so it hardly seems like a neologism to me.  It's newer than "neologism" but older than, for example, "genocide." TomTheHand 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's an American thing. You may see that as a good thing or a bad thing, and there are clear differences between English and American usages. I don't think that either can be argued to be "right". They're just different.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wasn't trying to say that the American way was "right."  I was just trying to say that many readers will look at the category name from an American perspective and that has to be taken into account. TomTheHand 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: On the topic of confusing categories, it seams to me that :Category:World War II ships vs. :Category:World War II naval ships are either redundant, or people have not been using them correctly.  While they both have similarly named sub categories (World War II naval ships of country x and World War II ships of country x), those sub categories are (generally) mutually exclusive (World War II battleships of country x will typically exist in either ships or naval ships but not both), which makes this a navigation nightmare.  As an example, if you were looking for the United Kingdom's World War II ships, some (battleships, cruisers, etc.) would be in :Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom, while others (destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.) are in :Category:World War II ships of the United Kingdom.
Anyone have some clever ideas on how we can clean this up? --Kralizec! (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between "naval ships" and "ships" is obvious only to those of us who do this all the time. Your average 'pedia reader/editor will not be familiar with it. Not sure what that means to this discussion except that perhaps Lou is right that "warship" is clearer. Jinian 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that we should rename "naval ships" categories to "warships."  That'll make things much more clear for the average Wikipedian. TomTheHand 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category confusion: [[:Category:World War II ships]] vs. [[:Category:World War II naval ships]] 

message: Hey guys, could you weigh in on the following category renames?
Minotaur class cruisers to Minotaur class cruisers (1909)
New Orleans class cruisers to New Orleans class cruisers (1931)
Arethusa class cruisers to Arethusa class cruisers (1913)
I thought listing them for renaming would be enough, but I just noticed that two have received no responses, and the other has received just one. TomTheHand 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category renaming 

message: Someone asked for this in Requested Articles, and I've given it a start.  The topic is amazingly badly covered right now...  This is a huge (book-sized) topic area, though, and I have only a little time.  All help appreciated...  Georgewilliamherbert 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help wanted: [[Cannons in the Age of Sail]] 

message: The above categories are currently used to cover ships in service from 1837 to 1901 and from 1799 to 1815, respectively.  I'm not sure that I agree with their use for ships outside of the UK and France, respectively.  It seems ethnocentric to me.  I could see Category:Napoleonic era ships being renamed to :Category:Ships of the Napoleonic Wars and used to cover ships that served in the wars.  I could also see Category:Victorian era ships being used just to cover ships of the UK.  However, I doubt the French consider La Gloire to be a Victorian ship and most Americans wouldn't classify Monitor that way either.  "Victorian era" is, in my opinion, an inappropriate classification for ships outside the UK. TomTheHand 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article "List of battleships of the Royal Navy" the ships are sequentially categorised as (1) Great Ships  (2) Sail battleships  (3) Steam powered ironclad battleships   (4) Dreadnoughts. This seems reasonable, and could be used to apply essentially to the ships of every country, with the statement of Nationality added.--Anthony.bradbury 17:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that does seem to be a reasonable classification system for ships of the line and battleships, it doesn't cover other types of ships very well. TomTheHand 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Victorian era ships]] and [[:Category:Napoleonic era ships]] 

message: The suggested template for ships has a field for displacement.  This template has been used for passenger ships as well.  Contributors who are unaware of the difference between tonnage and displacement often incorrectly insert tonnage here, an error which gets repeated on all the sites which mirror Wikipedia.  I've made many corrections of these errors but the use of the naval template (which has no tonnage field) may contribute to their recurrence.  Would it make sense to have separate fields for tonnage (or gross tonnage) and displacement?  Although displacement figures for merchant ships can be hard to find, sometimes both measures are available, and there are some vessels which have been both naval vessels and merchant ships (e.g., SS America/USS West Point) for which both figures are readily available.   Kablammo 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good question.  However, as you say, displacement figures for merchant vessels are hard to find, and tonnage figures for military vessels would be meaningless, so I'm not sure that having both figures on the template would be a good idea.  You're generally going to have one or the other, and cases where both are available will be the exception rather than the rule.  I wonder if having a merchant template with gross tonnage instead of displacement would be the way to go, and in rare cases when both figures are available they can both be listed in that special case. TomTheHand 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion makes sense (especially for passenger ships- some categories of cargo vessels may require other variations).  And the use of gross tonnage rather than tonnage should reduce the incidence of confusion.  Kablammo 14:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement/Tonnage 

message: Hello! I have taken the initiative to explore the possibilites of starting a Maritime military history task force under the Military history project. Are there any thoughts, objections, suggestions from the participants in this ship project. As it will be a combination of both project areas I suggest a collaboration :) A talk has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Maritime_military_history_task_force. Inge 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maritime warfare task force has been created :) Participants are wanted. Inge 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maritime military history 

message: I'm still working on categorization.  Aircraft carriers and battleships have proper era cats now, but for some reason I skipped cruisers and went straight to destroyers.  It's disheartening.  I've been working on it for days and I'm only down to F (specifically, :Category:Fletcher class destroyers... OUCH!).
Anyway, I wanted to ask about :Category:Ships by country.  Of course it's a mess, and I'd like to try to fix the whole structure up.  However, that's a ways down the road.  For right now, I'd like to start adding Ships by country categories.  My question is, should these categories go on individual ship articles or on ship class categories?  It's currently being done both ways.  I'm listing some pros and cons below; please add to it if you want!
Reasons to list individual ship articles:
* Ease of finding a specific ship if you don't know much about it.  I may know USS Heerman is a destroyer, but what class?  If every American destroyer article is listed under :Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy I only need to know the ship's name.
Reasons NOT to list individual ship articles:
* Overwhelmingly large cats.  The USN has had over 1000 destroyers (combining DDs and DDGs).
* Overwhelming amount of work.  I don't want to add country cats to every article!
Reasons to list ship class categories:
* Neatness.  A list of every destroyer class is much easier to look through and much easier on the eyes than a list of every destroyer.
Reasons NOT to list ship class categories:
* Not all ships of a class always belonged to the same navy.  For example, :Category:Bogue class aircraft carriers were built by the USN with the intention of giving most to the RN.  However, the RN referred to their Bogues by a different class name, so we might be ok listing the Bogue class under USN and the Attacker sub-class under the RN.
To be perfectly honest, I think it might be a good idea to do both.  It will be a ridiculous, overwhelming amount of work, but if it's done slowly as we improve articles it won't be unmanageable.  I think doing both combines the advantages and mitigates the disadvantages of both.  I don't feel that it's redundant, as I felt about the Ship classes issue above, because you're listing different information: the categories listed are for classes, the articles are for specific ships.  In the case of ships that were sold/given to another Navy, like USS Mississippi (BB-23) to Greece, we would list the class cat under USN but the ship article under both the USN and the Hellenic Navy. 
What do you guys think?  I'd like to start implementing a plan before too long, though I know Jinian hates it when I want to move fast.  The more ship articles I categorize before a decision is made, the more backtracking I'll have to do later. TomTheHand 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will list ships that were designed and built in one country for use by another country under the country that used them.  Ships that were built and used by one country for a while, then sold to another, will be listed under both.  The class category will be listed under the initial user of the ships, so :Category:Fletcher class destroyers is listed under only United States Navy, even though a bunch were sold to other navies eventually.  If a class of ships is built by one country for the purpose of selling them to another, it will be listed under the user's category.  For example,  :Category:Kongo class destroyers will be listed under Japan even though they were (I think) built in the US. TomTheHand 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships by Country 

message: Hello, I'm not sure if members of this project would be interested in Valiant Shield? Johntex\talk 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: Hi, guys. There's currently a proposal up at Categories for Deletion to merge :Category:Indian Navy ships into :Category:Naval ships of India. Your input would be appreciated. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Indian Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of India. Thanks! - EurekaLott 06:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CFD discussion

message: I'm starting to try and organize ships that were in the CSN. I've created these templates so far... Any suggestions/recommendations? This is my first attempt at this sort of thing :-) Here's what I have so far:
*Template:CSN Steamers 
*Template:CSN Armed Tugboats 
*Template:CSN Sloops 
*Template:CSN Ironclads
-plange 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'd like to say good job; I think our Civil War coverage could use a boost.  Second, the ship types should not be capitalized.  "CSN Steamers" should be "CSN steamers".  Third, it might be a good idea to expand CSN out.  Say, "Steamers of the Confederate States Navy."  I'm not 100% sure about the last; I am 100% sure about the second (lowercase the ship type).  Thanks for joining! TomTheHand 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, will do! Since I've already created them, how to I lowercase the Template name? I've now added:
*Template:CSN Cruisers
*Template:CSN Gunboats
-plange 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To lowercase the name, go to the template's page and click "move" at the top of the screen (it's between history and watch/unwatch).  Then retype the name with the ship type in lowercase.  It's probably a good idea to put a reason, even if you don't usually write edit summaries: "ship type in lowercase" is fine. TomTheHand 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate States Navy 

message: Is there a template for Talk pages that identify the article as being a part of this project? -plange 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: do we have one? I can try and make one if we need one...-plange 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * I agree.  This would have helped me find the project more easily today when I ran into this. --Stephane Charette 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I only found out about it because I'm on the Military history Project and when they added the maritime warfare task force they listed this as a Sister project. I just made one for a different project, complete with the WP:1.0 quality and importance scale, do you want me to take a stab? If so, are you wanting me to include the scales? This would only make sense to include if you guys are planning to implement this...plange 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Pages