Talk:List of cruisers of the United States Navy

message: Some sort of marker should be given to cruisers that are currently in active service. Kingturtle 05:45 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. Stan 06:08 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
::What a daunting task this is.  I note that USS Albany CLG 10 is absent from the list. (I looked closer at the CA 123 entry)  I have a pic of it in Mayport Fla. in Oct. 71. Perhaps ships which have multiple designations should have both listed, e.g. CA123/CG10. I'd like to contribute to the knowledge base and being an old destroyerman I guess I'd prefer to start there. Is there a blank formatted page to make it simpler and preserve continuity?  StinKerr 00:41, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the values of having a side-by-side list, instead of two separate lists, is that one can validate that they both list all the same ships if the two are the same length.  That useful property has now been destroyed by adding some to one list but not the other, and it's now so scrambled I can't tell what's wrong with it.  Might be easier just to revert the anon's change, even though it added some good info bits. Stan 21:36, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Although I'm all for images, it's tricky to place them in a two-column list so that they don't lay on top of the list. So I've reverted the additions, in the hopes that someone will figure out how to do this right (I don't know myself). Stan 05:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea no problem, I added the pictures back and changed the formatting as well. Nautical 19:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a side-by-side list, now the images make one half much longer than the other, so it's impossible to see if both lists have the same members, not to mention that the images interrupt the list, making it harder to scan. The images should be floating off to the right, not intruding inline. It's possible that it could be done with a three-column table somehow. Stan 22:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is something I didn't like about the current setup either. Im working on ways of having the format be better, such as three column thing, but I have not settled on what to do.  Im thinking either moving them off to the far right as you sugest, or perhaps put them in a center column (maybe 40-20-40 percent widths). Nautical 23:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far right has the advantage that for most people it is currently blank, so you're not "stealing" space that had information in it. Hard part is that some browser windows (such as on PDAs, which I've seen used to look at WP) are rather narrow, and you don't want the images to crowd out the list then. In fairness, the two-column list is somewhat nonstandard, WP has its own syntax for that sort of table now. Stan 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is something to consider, all these screen resolutions. I admit I tend to cater to the higher screen resolutions (being what I normally use) and since the trend seems to be towards higher res. I do somtimes rescale the text though to get a better idea of how the formatting goes if when the text must be larger. One idea- how about on the far left as a column? Might be easier to make it line up with the ship  names too. Nautical 22:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I'd like to make a minor reorganization to the introduction to better clarify the distinctions between the "cruiser hull" ships up through the CGN-9 Long Beach and the later "destroyer hull" ships, with citations from Friedman's Design History series. Thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, 23 July 2021 Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cruiser hull" vs "Destroyer hull" 

message: The IX-300 Prinz Eugen is currently embedded in the Heavy and Light Cruiser subsection. While this is true from both a functional and a gun caliber viewpoint, the Prinz Eugen was obviously not part of this sequence of ships, not having been built along with them, and especially since she was not given a CA- number. Can we create a new War prize subsection (possibly after the Alaska class in the Large cruiser subsection) and put it there? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prinz Eugen war prize 

message: This article has many links to ship articles that do not exist because the ship constructions were canceled. In nearly all cases the links get redirected to the article on the class, where information on the cancelled ship can be found in the list of the ships of the class. However, in a few cases there is no information at all because construction was never started, there is only the hull number and possibly a name, which just duplicates the list in this article.
The use of these class links would seem to be the proper approach in the List by name section of the article, because this section has no information on ship classes.
It is questionable that this same approach should be used in the Lists by type section, because in this section the canceled ships are arranged by hull number, and therefore indirectly by class. This means that there is usually a link to the class article, followed by a list of ships; if these ships are cancelled they also link to the class article, often over and over. The greatest example is the Fargo class.
In the interest of avoiding duplicate links these canceled ships' links should be removed. Agreed?Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to ship articles that don't exist 

message: In the March 2023 issue of Naval Institute Proceedings a proposal was made by an amateur naval historian to reclassify the Zumwalt-class destroyers as cruisers. Since this author had no official standing with the US Navy it seems inappropriate to include this proposal in this article, but it does seem appropriate that it not be forgotten, and so it is included here. Below is the applicable text:
* Redesignate DDG-1000, -1001, and -1002 to CG-74 through -76. The use of 1000 had some loose alignment with the Kidd-class destroyers (DDG-993 through -996) and the final Spruance-class destroyer, the USS Hayler (DD-997). However, the Zumwalts are far larger than the Kidd- and Spruance-class destroyers and their Ticonderoga-class cruiser derivative, and their new surface strike role is more befitting a traditional cruiser designation.
Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Zumwalt'' class destroyer reclassification