Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy

message: While updating a new entry today, I just noticed this addition basically for the first time since it was added. It still seems like it needs some kimd of time window added, nothing drastic, just something like;
"Expected to retire " (or) 
"Expected to retire "Or perhaps something else? As it is, every ship on this list is expected to retire at some point, so we should have a reason why we are counting these particular ships. 
, , anyone else... thoughts? - wolf 05:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your are correct, I have added 'by 2026' Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was referring to the new addition down in the "Fleet totals" section, that was added after this discussion. Sorry, I should've been clearer about that. - wolf 07:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know how 'USN fleet totals' works, so I don't want to touch that. But again, you are correct. Since the projected retirement dates are in the 'decommission' and 'end of service' templates, I wonder if 'USN fleet totals' can be programmed to return the latest date. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, nevermind. Ttm has apparently made some changes, and each ship in the "Expected to retire" section has the planned retirement year attached. This is better than just an approximated timeframe added to the title. Thanks again to Ttm for his efforts at creating these very helpful solutions. - wolf 16:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but would it not be better if the text I added for '2026' were not hard-coded but rather was picked up from the latest attached year? It is so close to being automated now. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! now my turn for a never mind! I see it has been done! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisit / question

message: A Navy League article Crane Ships, Heavy Lift Ships, Tanker Retired from Sealift Fleet dated June 21, 2021, lists 5 non-commissioned ships as having been removed from the RRF, but they are still on the list in this article. Did this happen? I don't want to edit that list.
PS: I looked at the NVR entry for one of these 5 and saw this: "The Naval Vessel Register no longer tracks vessels of the RRF."
Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's sources for the RRF here, I'll go through them and update the table when I have some time. - wolf 06:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready Reserve Fleet 21 June 2021 

message: While the NVR is undoubtedly an important source, one used widely and heavily in USN articles, it is also a primary source. It is important for content on WP to also be supported by secondary sourcing (see primary vs secondary sourcing). On another note, per , once an edit you've made has been reverted, if you disagree with the revert, it is preferred that you go to the talk page and start a discussion, to state your position and seek a resolution, as opposed to reverting again and attemtping a discourse via back-and-forth edit summaries. That is how edit wars are avoided. Thanks - wolf 15:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like I noted in the edit summary of USS John H. Dalton, the navalnews.com ref was reproduced simply from USN's pr, and therefore it was unsuitable as a secondary ref when both major contents were totally similar. Maritime guy (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

text: And about the item, which is a list only, it should keep general information about the vessels and the primary refs that support the information in it, and the readers can go to the relevant article on the enwp to get more information (or refs) on the vessel if they would like to, rather than adding these contents (also including refs) here. Maritime guy (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where to start. Well, in regards to lists... where does it say that? And if that's your reason for removing it from the list, then why are you also removing it from an article? (And doing so while this discussion is active? Annnd leaving that article with only a primary ref?) Why are you sooo determined to remove this ref? - wolf 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for my removal of the navalnews.com ref I have provided again above, and I'm writing again here, which is because the navalnews.com ref is unsuitable as the secondary source due to it being a simply reproduced USN's pr. About the contents (or refs) in the list article on enwp, I still maintain my points above. Maritime guy (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The navalnews ref is quite suitable as a secondary source. It does what secondary sources do... report news from primary sources, hence the duplication at times. - wolf 21:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The navalnews.com ref doesn't report news from the primary source, and it's just reproduced simply (republished, actually) from the latter as there is absolutely a lack own language in their reproduction. That is the reason why I deemed the navalnews.com here unsuitable as a secondary source. Maritime guy (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Navalnews is used as a source on numerous WP articles, if you want to challange it, RSN is right over ->here. - wolf 04:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attempting to challenge the navalnews.com being a source of articles on enwp, I just feel it's unsuitable as a secondary source of reproduced content from other sites when navalnews.com is republishing the same content from such sites. Maritime guy (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

text: ... Maybe I spoke too soon? I see you're referring to mid-thread comment in an edit you've made months after. Basically saying "cuz I said so " is not really a suitable summary. I'll say again: if there is an unresolved issue, it should be addressed on a talk page, not via edit summary. - wolf 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, I wrote in my edit summary that see this of ″my earlier reply in the talk page″ because it was part of the addressed results from a solved issue. (and since you didn't take any further disagreement at your subsequent replies in the topic at that time with the reply, it's you've agreed on the statement and meaning on the reply by default) Maritime guy (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more of a case of taking note of certain changes, and then even if you disagree with them, deciding whether you want to pursue the issue or not. I will say that nit-picking over sourcing is not necessarily the best use of time, and especially when it comes to primary vs secondary refs. (Even if content in a secondary ref is sourced from a primary ref, it's still beign reported in the secondary ref which satisfies out needs.) In those cases,  mass/wholesale changes of sources just to ultimately have a ref support the exact same content, is not really necessary. Lastly, please use edit summaries to simply note straight-forward chanages, and use talk pages for any on-going issues or in place of summaries that may solicit a reply. Thanks for your assistance. - wolf 04:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: The listed homeport for the USS Miguel Keith is "Saipan, Japan", shouldn't it be "Sasebo, Japan"? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed homeport to "Sasebo, Japan" Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS ''Miguel Keith'' typo? 

message: I see you added a "year built" column to the "Non-commissioned" table. I can understand the motive, it has room for it as it has less columns than the "Commissioned" table just above, and that table has a column for "Commission date", which tells us when the ship entered service, which the Non-comm table lacked. It's a good idea, but there is problem though, (which is why it's sometimes better to suggest significant changes on the talk page first) ...when exactly is the "year built"?Is it when the contract was awarded and/or when construction was approved? (Often noted in ship articles and found in the NVR.) Is it when construction started? (Generally regarded as the date the keel was laid.)Is it when the ship was delivered? (Usually found in the ship article infobox.)Or was it when the ship went into service? (Sometimes noted in the ship article.)All these dates can differ, often times by years. I think we need to be more specific here. - wolf 08:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again. It's been just over a week since you made that edit, and while you have edited since, you have, for some reason, chosen not to respond here. (Despite both the ping here, and the notice on your talk page regarding this post.) As such, I have reverted the "year built" column out of the Non-comm table. If you wish to revisit the matter, you may do so at anytime, by simply replying to this thread. This page is on my watchlist so I will be made aware of any posts here. - wolf 06:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-comm date column 

message: Just wondering if there is a reason as to why this ship hasn't been added to the list as it was comissioned nearly a month ago now? Brandon Downes (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you were correct to add the ship to the "commissioned" column as that's what we do with all ships the day they're commissioned. But, for future reference, you forgot to remove it from the "under construction" column. We only list a ship in one section on this page, changing as it progressea to each milestone. But no worries,  I got it ;-) Have a nice day - wolf 11:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS John L. Canley]] 

message: I think adding images would be nice. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you have in mind? - wolf 06:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: i added USS Abraham Lincoln's image IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit has been undone. If we were to add an image for that ship, we would have to add images for every ship, bascially necessitating an addition column. The table is not set up for that and isn't likely to be as it is pretty large already. There is a fairly comprehensive image section farther down the page, with every class/type represented with an image. There is a Nimitz-class carrier already included. - wolf 16:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ohhh ok. yeah I added only Abraham Lincoln's image as a test IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we add images?