Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Archive 1

message: Is there a place to go to see a list of articles already tagged with this? -plange 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all the contents of :Category:Maritime warfare task force articles, basically.  Were you looking for something in a different format? Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I wanted (I'm still new to Wikipedia so don't know all the ins and outs), thanks! -plange 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not acquainted with how the practice runs but to my mind it would be a good thing if the addition of the tag was not until one of the project members had worked on an article rather than a wholesale tagging of anything with a maritime military connection. The latter would idenitify a whole lot of material and then show up the task force because most of it would never get a chance to be worked on. That statement may not be as clear as I intended. GraemeLeggett 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really sure if that would be a good idea, considering that one of the primary purposes of the tagging is to advertise the existence of the task force to editors who might be interested in the topic. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: GraemeLeggett has a point - it bothers me too. I started tagging the various articles linked to the List of military operations, but there will be loads. Then add in ships and classes, etc. The article list may be unmanageable. perhaps we need management of the to do lists. Otherwise scope is a problem. But I do think the nettle should be grasped: id the articles, then prioritise. Folks at 137 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, once quality and importance ratings start getting added, you can do interesting things like this to find articles that need to be worked on for to-do purposes.  But, fundamentally, the tagging has only limited (as above) applicability to generating to-do lists; and it's generally more useful to construct them at least partially by hand anyways. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I'll continue tagging articles (mainly ops) and someone (GraemeLeggett?) can shout if it's a problem. Have to start somehow. I'm also adding to the to do list if there's a clean-up or stub etc tag. The copied template use has other tags. Should I set the WWII tasl force and others "on" as appropriate or is that treading on toes? Folks at 137 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not treading on toes at all; I would guess that the majority of tags are applied by people who aren't part of the task forces in question, and are just doing generic tagging.  Please feel free to turn on any of the other task forces if the article is applicable to them; it would be a great help, and would remove the need to tag the same articles multiple times. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question - do we tag people who were in the navy?-plange 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any reason why not :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, also, just got done tagging any pre-existing article about Confederate ships (and made wikifooters for them) and will now work through people....-plange 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What about Marines? plange 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your call.  I wouldn't necessarily tag them just for being Marines, but if they did anything related to maritime stuff (including amphibious landings, perhaps?), they can probably be tagged. Kirill Lokshin 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. The one I was working on participated in the Battle of Mobile Bay, so that sounds like it should be tagged...plange 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: I've noticed several articles on Swedish warships that use the "HMS" prefix. Is this correct? I thought it was reserved (at least in English language usage) for Royal Navy ships. Other countries have their own. eg, USS, HMCS, HNoMS, etc. Is there an accepted convention? Folks at 137 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, "HMS" just means "His Majesty's Ship", so isn't necessarily unique to Britain.  I have no idea what the formal Swedish terminology (which is what we really should be using) is, though.  Perhaps someone like Inge would be able to comment more specifically on that. Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Swedish, the abbreviation HMS is used, it means: Hans majestäts skepp (His Majesty's Ship). If Sweden is ruled by a female monarch it becomes Hennes majestäts skepp  (Her Majesty's Ship) Valentinian (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Ship prefix. Interestingly, in Denmark and Norway, KDM (Denmark) / KNM (Norwegian) simply means, respectively, "Royal Danish Marine Navy" and "Royal Norwegian Marine Navy". But in English, the prefixes used are HDMS (His Danish Majesty's Ship)  and HNoMS, respectively. See also Royal Danish Navy and  Royal Norwegian Navy. The Swedes apparently chose a solution easier to translate. Valentinian (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Inge, you are right of course. Same situation with Denmark; KDM / KNM = "Royal Danish (or Norwegian) Navy". The Swedish navy uses the HMS prefix on its official website in both the Swedish and English versions (see e.g. , p.21 in the original, p. 11 on the screen). I'd personally go with HMS. Valentinian (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) has any useful advice on the point, for what it's worth.  Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always the good ole reliable  and parenthesiized articles (e.g. 1632 (novel), Ring of Fire (anthology)) to keep things straight. Then the intro to the article should also be deliniating which country is the subject navy, so this (theoretical) concern is managable. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A standard article will be listing the country in question in the lead paragraph, use an infobox showing the relevant naval flag, and be sorted into a national category. If it is a stub article it will be stubbed with a national stub template (with a flag) as well as  so it should be possible to avoid confusion with little effort. Valentinian (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Valentinian makes a good point here. It shouldn't be difficult for even a casual reader to determine that he is dealing with a Swedish ship when reading an article. I don't think we should use terms not used in the real world so if the Swedes want to use HMS then we should comply. If there are ships with the same name in the two navies we can use parenthesis. One remaning problem is that Swedish ship may be taken for British ships in categories, but we might just have to live with that. Inge 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish warships 

message: Greetings, and congratulations on the formation of your task force. I go by LordAmeth, and I believe I am one of the primary contributors to Japanese medieval military history. I am curious what you naval historians think of the battle of Dan-no-ura. I apologize my article is not particularly long or detailed at the moment, but I am more curious not about your impressions of the article, but your impressions of the battle. If any of you have taken courses or read books on naval warfare, I would be curious if this battle is mentioned, and what is said about it. How important is it considered to be, compared to Salamis and Gravelines for example? Is it even as innovative and unique in terms of strategy and tactics as I believe it is? Thank you for anything you might offer. LordAmeth 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get much more decisive than settling the government for the next five-hundred years! Looks like a good start. Kudos // <B>Fra</B>nkB 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Dan-no-ura 

message: When did the change occur between capturing merchant ships and sinking them? Capture was the rule in the early 1800's, and seemed to continue during the American Civil War, but during the world wars merchants started getting sunk instead. It would be great if this could be worked into the article on commerce raiding.  Therealhazel 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Early WW I practice was the 'old fashioned way', but the space, crew size, etc. on the U-boats was prohibitive. In the early days, the Germans used to give the crews time to abandon ship... then some of them started shooting back, and things escalated. The whole idea of 'unrestricted submarine warfare' created quite a lot of adverse press and international breast-beating. Then it just went away as an issue so that the US Navy even designed the fleet boats (Gato class, etc.) assuming that sort of mission in the interwar years. Articles on infamous sinkings, iirc, the Lusitania, and a few others should provide some leads. May take some paper research in big libraries, but there should be a lot of material that just hasn't made it to the web yet. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a little more on this subject under Unrestricted submarine warfare. I have put in cross-links between Unrestricted submarine warfare, Commerce raiding and Tonnage war. John Moore 309 09:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commerce Raiding 

message: Who allocates the rating and importance tags to articles? The descriptions are quite sketchy and probably need someone objective and experienced to provide consistant evaluations. Folks at 137 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per FAQ #4, any member of the project is free to assess things.  (And yes, it really does mean exactly what it says.  If we limit assessment to any small group of people, we're going to be buried under issues of geographic and cultural bias, given how broad the scope of the project is.) Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessments 

message: Any thoughts would be welcome on the issue of what to do with this type of vessels. A literal translation of the concept in most languages ([küsten]panzerschiffe/panserskib etc.) would be armoured ship, which is unsuitable. The term Coastal [defence] battleship has also been proposed/used, though it too is a poor solution. The current article for this type of naval ship is Coastal defence ship. The matter seems to be complicated by a lack of research and references on the subject. Scoo 11:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen this problem before in relation to Norwegian "panserskip"(HNoMS Norge etc) and I believe the term coastal defence ship is too wide. We might almost as well use armoured ship. Any naval ship not intended to patrol the open seas might be labeled a coastal defence ship. I am leaning more towards the term coastal battleship as this says more about the "intention" behind the ship and the type of ship. It also implies they were smaller than normal battleships. They were in many ways the battleships of the small navies. Inge 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Coastal defence ship'', naming difficulties 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_weapons
Naval Weapons Category is confusing with so many sub categories.
If one category is "Naval weapons of US", then other category is "Cold war naval weapons".
I think we should decide first on what basis we should categorize them.
:Categories are not necessarily exclusive, by era and origin can co-exist. GraemeLeggett 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Naval weapons 

message: Hey all.  I've been trying for the past month to come up with a plan for standardizing :Category:Ships by country and fixing all of its problems.  I've been trying to discuss it on WP:SHIPS but it hasn't attracted much interest.  A couple of people stated that they supported the proposal, so I went ahead with attempting to rename categories and got slapped with a couple of oppose votes out of the blue.  It appears that the proposal needs more discussion and so I was hoping to entice some people from here over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships for a little while to get some input.
The current issue seems to be a disagreement between whether naval vessels should be categorized by country name or by navy name.  Navies are not named consistently, so naming by navy makes it more difficult to find information when browsing categories, but naming by country may be less correct. TomTheHand 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing [[:Category:Ships by country]] 

message: I was wondering what the protocol is on Pennant numbers on Wikipedia, if any.  The pennant number article uses the simplest version, with no full stop/period between the Flag Superior and the Number.  This seems to be the convention on many websites and in print, as well as being what appeared on the hulls of the warships themselves.
By contrast, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which cite the pennant number with the afore mentioned full stop/period.
If there isn't already an official convention on the matter, I propose that one be put in place.
-Harlsbottom 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved.  Matter closed. -Harlsbottom 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennant Numbers in the RN 

message: The article Battles of Narvik which is supported by this task force is now the focus of the current collaboration of the fortnight. Please join in improving this article.
Inge 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Collaboration|Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight]] 

message: If nobody has any objections, I'd like to move 5th Battle Squadron to British 5th battle Squadron as per the List of squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy.
-Harlsbottom 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[5th Battle Squadron]] 

message: Hey guys, could I ask your input on this subject?  We're discussing what the naming convention should be for "Ships by navy" categories.  Right now it's a mix between stuff like :Category:Battleships of the United States Navy and :Category:Royal Navy battleships.  It would be appreciated if some of you could pop over to WP:SHIPS to weigh in so we can have the discussion in one place. TomTheHand 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming navy categories 

message: I've assumed that privateers and their activities are included as, by definition, they were authorised by governments and were "unofficial" warfare. I've also added some pirates' biogs. Is this appropriate for a military task force?? I have an idea that the distinction may be blurred. Folks at 137 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably safe to include them insofar as they were actually involved in combat (regardless of whether they were part of a formal military); this is consistent to our treatment of, say, medieval military history. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirates & privateers 

message: This article is up for peer review by members of the military history task force. Maybe there's someone here who's qualified to have a look. The article uses an "HSK" prefix for German auxiliary cruisers (eg HSK Kormoran). Is this correct? I find no support here. Folks at 137 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think HSK stands for Hilfskreuzer, meaning auxiliary cruiser or some such. An unnecessary prefix that will only confuse. JimmyTheOne 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Axis naval activity in Australian waters]] 

message: I have read the reference article listed below the introduction page, but found no references or mention of the Captain Stefanov. The article on www.russojapanesewar.com/chemulpo.html suggests receiver of the Japanes ultimatun as Captain Rudneff, thus I think he should be the commander de facto of Russian side in Battle of Chemulpo Bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.115.101.121 (talk • contribs) 
:That's definitely the case.  A number of other details in the article seem quite dodgy as well; I'll have to see if I can dig up some more reputable references on this battle. Kirill Lokshin 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Russian Commander in Battle of Chemulpo Bay 

message: Hi guys, I've compiled a list of World War II British naval radar sets at, oddly enough, List of World War II British naval radar. I've arranged the page so you can pipe links from articles into the relevant sub-section using an anchor (E.g. to link to Type 279, Type 279). I chose the page name carefully after much checking, as it fits in with the general scheme of things in the electronic warfare articles. Emoscopes Talk 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of World War II British naval radar 

message: It's customary to add the appropriate national or naval flag to various articles, eg ships. What's best: the current version or one appropriate to the ship's historic period? For example: in WWII, Australian and Canadian warships flew the "white ensign" used by the RN. Their own ensigns came into use in the 1960s - so which is best to use? Other affected nations include Italy, Germany, USA (two more stars so no big deal!). Changes are being made to articles to show current flags, so an agreed convention would help. Folks at 137 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm?  I was under the impression that WP:SHIPS specifically kept a gallery of historical flags for such things.  (Certainly seeing the Bismark with a modern German flag would be quite silly.)  You might want to talk to them and see if they're aware of these changes. Kirill Lokshin 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current or historic flags 

message: Please take a look at talk Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#USS Sculpin where I discuss these articles. Lincher 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Sculpin (SS-494)]] and alike 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I was recently rather surprised that the coverage of RN vessel names is quite poor, both at the generic name, specific ship name and class name levels. I made a start on this with Ham class minesweeper, chosen almost at random. Has this issue reviously been raised? I assume the aim would be:
* Each class of RN ship would have a class page (eg Ham class minesweeper) and a class category (eg :Category:Ham class minesweepers)
*Each individual ship name would have either
**A disambig page where there is more than one ship of that name (eg HMS Abercrombie)
**or a Redirect to a specific ship where one one of the name exists but naming conventions mean it has a Pennant number or date appended (eg HMS Aberdare)
**or be a specific article in its own right (eg HMS Abbotsham)
*Each individual ship would have its own unique page 
Is there a simple way of identifying all redlines starting with "HMS" in order to identify a candidate list and to monitor progress?
Apologies if this guidance exists already - I have not located it!
Welsh 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's List of Royal Navy ship names, but I'm not sure how complete that is. Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization provides the most relevent guidance, pretty much in line with what I was suggesting above. I have found List of Royal Navy ship names is helpful but not complete.  Welsh 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple reason is, it's such a mammoth task. I've been hard at this problem on and off for a good 6 months, and finally managed to get the entire list of destroyer classes blue-linked recently, I think I'm going to turn my attention to the other escort classes soon (larger ships are pretty well covered). I'm afraid minor things like Hams, Leys and whatnot are lower down my list of priorities. Emoscopes Talk 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage of Royal Navy vessels 

message: Lately the page USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) has come uder increased vandalism attacks by anons who are adding (or subtracting, as the case may be) from the article. Luckly, AntiVandalBot has caught the worst of it, but minor stuff continiously ends up in the article anyway. Could I pester a few good men and women to add this article to your watchlists or otherwise make a point of checking it to ensure factual accuracy? I would be very thankful, especially since I do not get much wiki time during school. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battleships article has also had some rough treatment lately. John Moore 309 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting extra eyes for vandalism watch 

message: This is just to inform any interested parties that the Featured Article Review for Wisconsin has evolved into a featured article removal discussion; anyone with an interest in the topic is invited to comment there. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Wisconsin'' on FARC 

message: Anyone direct me to pics of this ship already licenced for wiki use? Folks at 137 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Hood picture? 

message: Hey all!  Some time ago at WP:SHIPS we had a discussion about improving Template:Infobox Ship.  However, we weren't able to get anything implemented and we could really use a template expert.  If anyone is interested, please read about it here.  I can further clarify what I was thinking we should work on, if it's needed.  I think an improved ship infobox would help both projects out.  Thanks! TomTheHand 14:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at WP:SHIPS. Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any template experts? 

message: There's a new peer review request for Portal:United States Navy that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Portal:United States Navy]] 

message: Anyone with a good knowledge of the US Fleets in WW 2, this page could really use some work.
Cheers
Buckshot06 22:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United States Fourth Fleet]] 

message: Happy New Year. Are there views about whether items on this list can be removed? I'm reluctant to do this as I've edited some (and therefore am not objective) and I doubt I have the skills to judge. I no longer add to it as it's duplicated by the "Expansion needed" list and I think that a long list loses any sense of priority. It also seems to be largely disregarded. Folks at 137 09:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably sensible to remove them, or at least move those that still need work into the list in the template; there's no real benefit to having two separate lists. Kirill Lokshin 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll just move them en masse - but the basic question of whether such a list is being actively maintained still remains. Folks at 137 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles to be improved list 

message: :Category:US State Related Ships has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to comment (positively or negatively) at the CfD discussion page. --A. B. (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:US State Related Ships]] [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Category:US State Related Ships|nominated]] for deletion 

message: There's a long, slow-burning edit-war going on over ironclad warship: about whether turtle ships need to be included in the article on ironclads. Could some uninvolved and level-headed people take a look?  The Land 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war on [[Ironclad warship]] 

message: King is often stated to have been an Anglophobe, several Wiki articles repeat this. Certainly this ties in with some of his wartime decisions (and Churchill did go over his head to Roosevelt on occasions), but it's in danger of being an "accepted truth". Are there any solid references for or against it or for why he was so? Folks at 137 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernest King 

message: The UK naval ships stub type has become very large;  I've made a proposal here to create a number of more specific stub types to help bleed off some of them...  Please comment there if you have any thoughts.  (Duplicate of message to WP:SHIP.)  Alai 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK naval ship stub types 

message: I'd like a second opinion on new information being added by a user citing themselves as a source. See [ and most recent edits to . Thanks. -Dual Freq 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Worden (CG-18)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for HMS Royal Oak (1914) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[HMS Royal Oak (1914)]] 

message: The Battleship article is up for a G/A-Class review. Any input is welcomed as always! --MoRsE 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon my ignorance; how do I access the discussion page? The above link takes me only to the list of candidates. Please reply here; I have added this page to my watchlist. Regards to all, John Moore 309 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, GA doesn't use per-article nomination pages, so any discussion would take place direclty on Talk:Battleship. Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would explain it. I'll know for next time. Thanks. John Moore 309 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G/A-Class review for [[Battleship]] 

message: The system of requesting articles is being doled out to the task forces now. That means no massive communal list of requests any more, and much larger/longer lists within the task force templates. This task force already has a substantial list of requested articles, and they do not appear to be in any particular order. It would be a great help if anyone who was so inclined could take it upon themselves to put these into an order (preferrably some variation on alphabetical). Those of us who are moving the request list into the task forces (and you all are welcome to help with that as well) will of course do our part to aid in this process. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Organization 

message: The list is v big. I've put up some suggestions on the talk page. Comments are sought. Folks at 137 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of World War II ships]] 

message: I am a bit confused on this requested article are we asked to create a article about an event that never happened?  I am assuming this would be a WWIII WP/Nato type thing and what are we supposed to say about something that never happened? Tirronan 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the term used to refer to the US/Soviet submarine operations in the Atlantic during the Cold War, so that may be what the request is about.  Otherwise, it'd be acceptable to simply create a redirect to whatever the most appropriate existing article is. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Battle of the Atlantic? 

message: I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to restructure the Bismarck Chase and Operation Rheinübung articles. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become 
an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Operation Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate  template, and scoped as follows:
*A description of the planning and objectives of the operation, 
*A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
*An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
*A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.
I am placing a similar post on the Talk:Operation Rheinübung page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on Talk:Bismarck Chase. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed restructure of [[Bismarck Chase]] and [[Operation Rheinübung]] articles 

message: Thanks to all who have commented. Unless anyone expresses strong dissent, I will rename Bismarck Chase as Last battle of the "Bismarck" in the next couple of days. Regards to all, John Moore 309 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last call for comments

message: I have renamed Bismarck Chase as Last battle of the battleship Bismarck and made the appropriate redirects. In its new form, this article needs a lot of work, and contributions will be very welcome. Thanks to all for your time. Regards, John Moore 309 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Done

message: :Category:Famous class cutters came up in Categories for discussion on 25 April 2007. The problem, obviously, is that people look at this and think, "famous truants?" I think I've managed to convince them of the ship category conventions, but it would be good to try for something a little clearer, such as :Category:Famous class USCG cutters or something like that. Please discuss and visit the CfD. Mangoe 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Famous class naval cutters"?  Or maybe "Famous class cutters (ships)"?  (But, admittedly, the coincidence of this particular name coming out bizarre is something that we can't work fully around.) Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help with categorization of USCG cutters 

message: There is a CfD ongoing for :Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers that may be of some interest to members of this task force - input from knowledgeable editors has been requested, and any comments would be welcome. You can find the discussion here. Carom 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also check out the umbrella CFD for the rest of the newly-created US cruiser subdivisions here. TomTheHand 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD for cruiser category 

message: Some articles are using  and others are using  in the infobox. Can someone clarify which is being used when? I presume currently commissioned ships are using the latter and decommissioned (older) ships are using the former? --Daysleeper47 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.svg is for ships that were decommissioned when the U.S. flag had 48 stars.  That's July 4, 1912–July 3, 1959, which is a substantial period of time that covers both world wars.  :Image:Naval Jack of the United States.svg is the current flag, and it's for ships that are currently in commission or that decommissioned since September 11, 2002.  It is also for very early ships (January 8, 1776–June 14, 1777).  Instead of hardcoding an image, please use Template:USN flag.  It will allow you to get the right image for the year, allows us to control the appearance of all jacks at the same time, and looks cleaner on pages. TomTheHand 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that the use of naval jacks instead of ensigns was debated a while ago. The consensus was to use the ensign in infoboxes, not the jack, except in exceptional circumstances. The US Naval Jack was not one of these. Folks at 137 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let me go ahead and change the template now.  I'm sorry, I've been less than willing to do this because it's been a contentious issue in the past, but last time we discussed this you did point me to a discussion that appeared to show consensus for ensigns.  Please continue to use the template in all cases, and I will change the template to show ensigns instead of jacks. TomTheHand 12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.  Again, use the template; the template can reflect consensus on what flag should be used and will ensure that you always have the right one for the year. TomTheHand 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of US Naval Jacks 

message: Battleship was a long article when it became an FA a few months ago. It has since become longer. There are two sections which are not currently written as summaries and which could be forked off: dreadnoughts and World War I to dreadnought, and rearmament and World war II to Battleships in World War II. Either of those could become an FA in its own right - dreadnought would be particularly close. I'm posting here looking for more people to contribute to the discussion on Talk:Battleship, and to help improve any forked articles ;) The Land 10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views wanted - forking off sections of [[battleship]] 

message: The page Table of current naval strengths is currently completely broken and needs some expert attention! Not my field but others may be able to help. tia--mervyn 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of current naval strengths 

message: Is there some convention for how naval battles are capitalized (i.e. "Battle of Midway" vs. "battle of Midway") in article text?  I haven't been able to find any reference on this.  Thanks for your help! Rem01 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general convention (for all battles) that I've seen used is to capitalize leading nouns; thus, "the Battle of Midway" would be the variant used. Kirill 18:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval battle naming convention 

message: I'm wondering whether there is a convention on Naval (or Military) ranks here on Wikipedia.  Generally, articles tend to use either the American rank forms (Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral etc.) or the British (Rear-Admiral, Vice-Admiral &c.), regardless of the nationality of the sailor in question.  A book I have, Warships of the World - Victory Edition published in 1947, managed to differentiate between the various forms of the same rank.  Perhaps we should do the same?
Apologies if this has already been brought up.  --Harlsbottom 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Conventions 

message: There are a lot (as in, over 500) of external links to [www.maritimequest.com MaritimeQuest.com] in Wikipedia warship articles. Some of them - example -  are photo-galleries of a type which I haven't seen anywhere else on the wb. Others are less useful (links to class specs pages, where the details are largely alredy in Wikipedia). User:Beetstra, after a modicum of discussion at WT:WPSPAM, has begun a mass removal of all of these links. I wanted to hear your views on whether they count as valid external links or as spam... Regards, The Land 11:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to clarify here, that it is not the link or the content that is defined as spam here, but the way they were added (see our spam guideline).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On the point in question, rather than the method of removal - the ones I have seen are to photos of the vessel in question and I believe add to the article.  Of course it makes the article look nice if an image is uploaded to WP and embedded in the article, but if the copyright owner doesn't want to GPL the image, then an external link that is pretty much as good for a researcher - provided it goes direct. I think it should be for the article editors to make the judgment about which links to remove Viv Hamilton 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have offered some observations and suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#3rd opinion request. --A. B. (talk)  16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have left an explanation and suggestion on Michael Pocock's talkpage in order to move on.  I am sorry that so much aggravation has been caused by these edits.  I hope things are settled now.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MaritimeQuest external links 

message: This may need to head over to CfD for final resolution, but I noticed the existence of two separate and not particularly coordinated sets of categories for navy ships starting off with :Category:Ships by navy and :Category:Naval ships by country, the latter of which has references back to this Wikiproject.  Is there supposed to be this apparent parallelism, and if not, which set should be preferred? Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue that's had a significant amount of debate over the course of the past few years, as each set has its own proponents.  Any attempt to take it over to CfD has resulted in no consensus.  Currently the compromise consensus is that both should exist, as both country names and navy names come and go. TomTheHand 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which set of categories? 

message: ::This was originally posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but moved here after the first comment.
The article HNoMS Norge and some 30 other pages HNoMS Norge, HNoMS Eidsvold, HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen OPV, HNoMS Trygg, HNoMS Tordenskjold, HNoMS Harald Haarfagre, Draug class destroyer, Norwegian B class submarine, HNoMS Draug, HNoMS Troll, HNoMS Garm, Sleipner class destroyer, HNoMS Nor (1878-1949), HNoMS Uller (1876-1940), HNoMS Gor (1884-1945), HNoMS Tyr (1887-1945), HNoMS Frøya, HNoMS Olav Tryggvason, HNoMS Kong Haakon VII, HNoMS Æger (destroyer), HNoMS Sleipner (1937-1959), HNoMS Gyller, HNoMS Odin, HNoMS Rauma (1940-1963), HNoMS Otra (1939-1963), HNoMS Stegg, HNoMS Nordkapp OPV (1937), HNoMS Hitra, Trygg class torpedo boat, HNoMS Heimdal OPV (1892), Norwegian A class submarine cite Norwegian naval ships 1939-1945 (1986) with a bad . The correct one should be . I could go through them and correct the ISBN, but perhaps something else needs to be checked as well? Is this a good book and edition to cite? How do you typically handle errors of this kind in this WikiProject? Do you maintain a list of standard literature, and would this book be on that list? After all, it's cited in 30 articles. --LA2 09:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each task force within the project maintain their own resources list. This particular reference is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Sources which is a closely affiliated project. I think this is a typo that should be corrected. The reference is a well regarded one and we should check that all of the other details are correct. Woodym555 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed all of those and cannot find anymore through the search function. Thanks for pointing it out. Woodym555 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and ISBNs 

message: Sorry to bother you folks. But for some reason, I am unable to upload files to wp:commons. When I type into the "destination filename" gadget, this weird red light icon flashes next to the gadget, and when I hit the "upload" button, nothing whatever happens. I've tried uploading files from external websites and my own PC, makes no difference. The image copyright selection box is set to "US federal government" so that isn't the problem. Left messages at wp:images and wp:commons village pump but got no response, so it seems my only alternative is to ask someone else to do the uploading for me!
The image I'm currently trying to upload is of the USS Clay (APA-39) from navsource online. The image is originally from the US Naval Historical Centre and is the first image on this page. Would someone be willing to upload it for me? I want to put it into the article of the same name. Gatoclass 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone upload a file to commons for me please? 

message: I've added the MilHist assessment banner to List of Royal Yachts of the United Kingdom, I'm not sure whether it should belong to the project or not - except that people here are most likely to have the information about the yachts Viv Hamilton 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Royal Yachts of the United Kingdom 

message: I just happened to notice that the 117 ships in the Haskell class attack transport template were not in alphabetical order. They were originally in order of class number, but since class numbers aren't listed in the template display, I figured there was no reason not to put them in alphabetical order, so I did just that.
After doing so however, I realized that you can actually access the class number by hovering the mouse over individual entries, but I wasn't inclined to change back because I figure most people would be looking for a name rather than a particular number anyhow. But I thought maybe I would canvas the issue here to see what other people think.
Also, I thought I'd take a look through some other class templates to see in what order ships are listed, and from what I saw, most of them seem to have no discernable order at all. Is there a policy regarding the sort order of ships in templates, or is it just something no-one got around to thinking about yet? I think we ought to have some sort of consistent policy regarding sort order, because a random sort order is of no use to anyone. Gatoclass 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not aware of any policy on this issue, I follow two rules of thumb.  If the number of ships is "small" I list them by build order, which is often -but not always!- the same as by hull/pennant number.  If the number of ships is "large" I list them alphabetically in order to make it easier to find individual ships.  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I figure alphabetical is probably better, because most people would be looking for a particular ship name and if they know the HC No. they probably know the name as well. So I think I'll keep listing them that way. Gatoclass 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship class template sort order 

message: Just looking at the categories under :Category:Auxiliary ships. We have a bunch of auxiliary subcats listed by country, ie "Auxiliary ships of Russia", Auxiliary ships of Poland" etc. No problem there. However, for the UK, we have both "Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom", which fits with all the other subcats, but then there is also "Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom". Unless I have missed something, this appears to naming the same thing as the other UK cat, only in a nonstandard way.
Additionally, there is nothing at all listed under :Category:Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom and only one subcat and a couple of ships under :Category:Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom. On the latter page however, we find another cat called :Category:Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships and opening this we find a whole bunch of subcats and ships.
It appears to me this whole structure is screwed, there is no need for either the "Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom" cat (which is a nonstandard name) or the "Royal Fleet auxiliary ships" cat. It looks to me as though all the ships and subcats in these categories should be listed directly in the "Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom" cat.
I'd list these cats for deletion myself without further ado, but I just want to be sure there is nothing I've missed here that justifies the existence of these two nonstandard cats - which is to say, is there a difference in the UK navy between "auxiliaries", "fleet auxiliaries" and "royal fleet auxiliaries"? If not, I will reorganize these cats and list the latter two for deletion. Gatoclass 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: It appears that auxiliaries for the RN are divided into two categories, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service. So I guess there *is* a good reason to have a category called "Royal Fleet auxiliary ships". So it looks like the only problem is the "Fleet auxiliaries of the United Kingdom" parent cat. This cat should be merged into "Auxiliary ships of the United Kingdom" for consistency with the other country cats, and it should have two separate subcats, one for Royal Fleet auxiliary ships (already extant) and another called Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service ships. If there are no objections, I will go ahead with this reorganization sometime over the next few days. Gatoclass 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up Royal Navy categories 

message: The peer review for Pre-dreadnought is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes indeedyy. The Land 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Pre-dreadnought]] now open 

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: This article survived its AfD but I think it's worth having a more general discussion here as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs. I opposed deletion in that AfD on grounds of precedent and consistency but going forward, I think it would be better to list these small auxiliaries with all their basic data in the article for their ship-class. If one turns out to have more of a story, it can still have its own article -- for example, see the USS Hoga (YT-146) article.
One advantage is that is easier to watch one larger article than dozens of stubs.
I'll also note that I don't think the U.S. Navy still considers its harbour craft as commissioned vessels, so do we keep articles for now-retired, formerly commissioned tugs but not for new tugs?
Others' thoughts? --A. B. (talk)  17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Start with the class article and only expand later if possible.GraemeLeggett 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the solution of class articles plus redirects.  If you look at the List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy there are 5 harbour tugs listed with articles (all from DANFS) and none of these says anything notable.  Viv Hamilton 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My view is that ships of certain types below a certain size best belong in class articles, unless there is anything otherwise notable about them. We can't have the perfect article on Japanese submarine chaser Cha 98, not on the thousands of other tugs, patrol boats, merchantmen acting as storeships, and other miscellaneous vessels. We can't have the perfect article on every small boat that evacuated servicemen from Dunkirk. Often, only very basic information is ever recorded in any published source. We can have the information presented in an informative and comprehensible manner in articles about classes. Regards, The Land 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I feel that the act of being officially commissioned into a nation's navy is inherently notable for any ship, I whole-heartedly agree with having ships listed on their class articles and not forking them unless they have enough verifiable info to be a non-stub article.  USCG 95 foot Cape class patrol boat is a good example of this in practice.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up

message: 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 beneficial to both the Military history Project and the Ships project. Comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me chime in before I head off to school this morning on this: Featured topic status currently encompasses only a limited number of articles (218), yet within the scope of this project and the ship's project there are multiple topics which could and should strive for this status. The criteria is a little different than what Tom has stated. While a majority of the articles in the topic must be featured, the remainder need only be GA. I believe that all the articles relating to the Iowa class battleships should be our first Featured Topic. By checking this bulleted status list in my sandbox: Checklist here, we can see that this topic is close to meeting the criteria currently, and we should strive to meet the special distinction associated with the Featured Topics where all the articles in the topic are Featured.-MBK004 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. In due course I hope to see a featured topic on the history of the battleship ;) The Land 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan to me!  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will A-class review count towards Featured Topics? It would be very irritating to have to submit articles for GA status just so they can get into a featured topic ;) The Land  15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the Featured Topic people have already rejected A-class here under the auspices that if an article is A-class worthy, it should be brought up to FA, and if it isn't worthy of being a GA, it shouldn't be A-class.-MBK004 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But A-class is a tougher test to pass than Good Article! Ludicrous. The Land 16:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most projects don't have any formal review for A-Class articles, though.  The folks at FT may be willing to make an exception for us, given that we have one. Kirill 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In my mind's eye I see this as us bringing every ship in a class up to FA status, along with the class page itself and an armament of or aircraft of the XXXXX-class if the article requires one. Since ship classes are by definition governed by the number of ships produced for the class we can set up work groups for the featured topics and run them in a style similar to the contest. Thats how I see this (although other opinions are as always welcome). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compiled a quite detailed list of most of the US battleship classes that saw combat in WWII and their status towards FT in my sandbox. I also think Tom's above idea has merit and would also like other opinions/suggestions. -MBK004 02:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal