Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 7

message: Speaking of ship infoboxes, can someone point me to a tutorial that shows you how to create such infoboxes? I'd like to experiment a bit. Gatoclass 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest method is to copy and paste one from another article and then edit the details.  Some are done from templates - these are meant to be helpful - their only advantage is that they impose common standards.  However, templates frequently have unobvious features.--Toddy1 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox Ship Example has the standard ship infobox available for copy & paste. -- Kjet 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what I'm saying is, how do I create my own infobox, with my own custom features? I don't just want to alter the sequence or delete a few entries in the standard infobox, I want to know how to create an entirely new one from scratch, with my own custom functions. Gatoclass 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned to edit templates by making copies of existing templates in my user space and messing around with them while reading various help files over at meta.  Here are some articles that might help. TomTheHand 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Tom. I'll take a look at those links a little later. Gatoclass 06:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox creation 

message: I could use some help dealing with a user adding unsourced OR and possibly POV content to the USS Holland (SS-1) and General Dynamics pages, per this diff and this one. This isn't the first time such info has been added to these pages, but the user is being aggresive about reverting today, claiming to be adding "facts". I know absolutely nothing of the history involved here, so I'm only judging these additions on Wiki sourcing policy, the users protests to the contrary. - BillCJ 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, whoa.  It's under control.  Please don't do anything. TomTheHand 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If he reverts again I will block him under the three revert rule. TomTheHand 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S/He's been reported for sock puppetry here. Parsecboy 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether it's true or not isn't the point. Edit-warring and especially sock-puppetry are not tolerated. Neither is the violation of WP:V, especially with edits that appear to be OR and POV pushing. Parsecboy 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomaly, please, you're very enthusiastic but I feel that you misunderstand what this project is all about.  We are here because we love writing and improving articles about ships.  We don't do a lot of centralized planning and we don't have a focus on fighting vandalism.  We talk here when we need a second opinion or we disagree about something, but mostly, we work on articles.  Please find something you're interested in and write about it. TomTheHand 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to hear about your arm.  I can definitely understand how that could keep you from doing a lot of typing.  I've mentioned before that we have a list of tasks that you can help out with.  It's located on our front page.  I think that there are a couple that might be good for someone who's not able to type a lot.  Do you want me to tell you about them in detail? TomTheHand 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced OR/POV help 

message: A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for USS Illinois (BB-65); all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC for [[USS Illinois (BB-65)]] needs attention 

message: I have gone through List of United States Navy ships, A and from there followed all the articles to look for conformity. I placed many project templates on talk pages, made various corrections to disambig pages, marked for infobox needed etc. Placed a few other wiki related tags as well. Overall, I would say a large majority of the articles are in nice condition. Don't count on me doing the B list anytime soon :) --Brad (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audit on List of United States Navy ships, A 

message: :Category:United States Navy ammunition ships is orphaned. Can anyone here find appropriate parent categories for it, or alternatively (if it doesn't fit the structures) nominate it at CfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it into :Category:Auxiliary ships of the United States Navy. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ships like military oilers and tugs are called auxiliaries, and we have categories for them already. TomTheHand (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:United States Navy ammunition ships 

message: um i havn't checked but since during the civil-war condfedrates were a seprate country do their ships on wiki have the confedrate flags? and if not why not and how would i change them?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do,  - .  See CSS Alabama for an example of it in action. Benea (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederacy 

message: Could someone tell me what the article mae for the Buque de Proyección Estratégica class amphibious ship page should be? A new user moved it to Juan Carlos I (ship), but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the correct name per the conventions. Since I'm new to the project, the conventions are still confusing for me, so any help and intervention on this would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Buque de Proyección Estratégica class amphibious ship sounds right to me.  Juan Carlos I (ship) definitely isn't.  It's a class, not a single ship.  Benea (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is just a single ship class, to my knowledge. Principe de Asturias (R11) is also a one-ship class, and coes not have a class page. - BillCJ (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (editconflict) Though it might be a little more complicated than that, since it seems to be a one ship class.  Spanish amphibious ship Juan Carlos I would be the alternative, if the article concentrated more on the specific ship.  But in that there could theoretically be more ships built in the class, then the use of a class page would be fine, with the individual ship details/history being hived off into their own article as and when she commissions.  Benea (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now at  Juan Carlos (LHD1). While this seems proper (assuming LHD1 is the correct designation), the move was made after I'd posted a note on the article talk page asking that the user wait until the matter has been discussed. This user and I have been engaging it low-grade edit wars all day, and I have no desire to see his pattern of making unilateral edits without discussion continue. However, I doubt he would listen to me at this point, as I've been pretty quick at reverting his bad edits (some have been good), and seem to be the only user to have done so. - BillCJ (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is correctly titled now according to our conventions, and should be left where it is.  If you wanted to develop a page to cover the ships of the class (since it seems there is talk of there being another two ships), that could be at 'Buque de Proyección Estratégica class amphibious ship', or the more likely 'Juan Carlos I class amphibious ship' (or some variant of amphibious ship).  Otherwise it seems to be settled that it is a ship page and not a class page, which seems to have been what was at the heart of the edit war.  Benea (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I actually wanted to move the page to the ship name too, but I didn't know what was the proper name. I only reverted his first move so that there wouldn't be too many redirects. Anyway, I agree that there would need to be a class page if the Spanish Navy were to buy more ships. The RAN is buying two as the Canberra class, and they are covered at Canberra class large amphibious ship. THanks for your help in resolving this, and I'm sorry if my quickness to revert has caused you any dificulty. - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming help 

message: Did we ever reach a decision on putting links to HullNumber.com on the articles for every USN ship?  I remember there was some discussion about it, and we generally didn't think it was a good idea, and then  swung by and explained that it's a free service to sailors.  I think we shuffled our feet guiltily and then didn't say anything else on the matter one way or another. TomTheHand (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it's a good idea - there are lots of military reunion type websites to chose from, and they're generally not regarded as being suitable external links as they don't cotain any information on the actual subject of the article. I guess it falls under Wikipedia not being a social networking service. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to what? Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Usnht's contributions; basically what he does is add links on ship articles to that ship's subpage on HullNumber.com. TomTheHand (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Strictly speaking, I don't think those links are appropriate for an encyclopedia, since they are only of interest to a tiny percentage of readers, basically the former shipmates themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HullNumber.com 

message: I just noticed that this article is a speedy delete candidate due to it being a ship that was never completed. What are people's opinions on that? Martocticvs (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed a rationale that since the ship has a DANFS entry, it is notable enough to have an article here and cited two examples of ships that were never completed that are of a high standard:  and . -MBK004 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have declined it, mainly per your rationale. No prejudice against an AFD. Woody (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Ontario (1863)]] - CSD 

message: Working independently of each other,  and I added additional functionality to the  banner yesterday.  The two new assessment classes are List and Cat.  The project's assessment instructions have been updated to include both new classes.  As of right now, our project banner makes full use off all classes included in the standardized  header.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huzzah! (I actually noticed this by incident yesterday). Since lists are now enabled, someone should probably take a look at the lists of ship launches, commissionings, decommissionings and wrecks, as I classed (most of) them before lists were enabled so they now display the wrong class. Or ideally some tech-wizard could make a bot to fix 'em, which would save a lot of trouble... Anyways, very good job on enabling the missing classes. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional functionality added to the WikiProject Ships banner 

message: Just an FYI. Deleted without notification, rationale being empty category, yet I just added the  to a few articles. The CfD discussion is here, and the deletion review discussion is here. Apparently we were not the only WikiProject affected. What happened? -MBK004 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is now a red-link related to this in the . -MBK004 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Those cats were renamed—ours was (somewhat bizarrely) renamed from :Category:Ship articles without an infobox to :Category:Ship articles without infoboxes. The template  was updated, though, so everything should work fine; I'll look around for any links that need fixing. Maralia (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that explains that. The renaming was a bit strange, also that we weren't notified at all. Or were we notified and I just forgot? -MBK004 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We weren't notified here. I happened to see it while it was up for rename at CfD, but didn't raise a stink about it since they were only discussing renaming it from 'without' to 'needing'—an immaterial change for our purposes. I didn't notice the CfD had been closed, so thanks for pointing it out so I could fix links. Maralia (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I put a Table of Contents tag on the category so you can click U to see all of the USS ships, for example. --Brad (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Ship articles without an infobox]] was deleted! 

message: Okay, since there have been no objections I've changed the names of the articles as proposed above.
*The content of the USCG High Endurance Cutter page has been moved to Hamilton class cutter. High endurance cutter has been made a disambig page (between the Hamilton and Owasco classes). The "USCG High Endurance Cutter" page should probably now just be deleted since it follows a nonstandard naming convention and is serving no useful purpose. Update: Actually, no it probably shouldn't be deleted yet since there are a number of pages that link to it and they should be redirected to other pages first.
*Secretary class cutter now redirects to Hamilton class cutter and I created a new page, Hero class cutter which also redirects to Hamilton class cutter.
*Renamed USCG Owasco Class Cutter to Owasco class cutter. The prior page should probably now be deleted. Gatoclass 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work!  Renaming articles into compliance with WP:NC-SHIP could almost be a full-time job.   --Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name changes

message: Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
* General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
* Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:GIP|Greenspun illustration project]]: requests now open 

message: With the Infobox Ship Class template, the class type field replicates on two spots, the title and an item in the list on the infobox.  Because of this, it looks wrong in the title when you capitalize it, yet it looks wrong if it's lowercase in the list.  Is there anything you can do about it?  American Patriot 1776 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as a side question.  Should those articles using Infobox Ship be changed over to Infobox Ship Example? American Patriot 1776 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fixable.  I tried to fix it; but it didn't take.  Either I coded wrong, or perhaps WP has longer update lag or batches template updates - I haven't worked on templates for larger wikis before, so not sure.  But it can be fixed - I'll just let someone else do it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding  →  migration, I would say that because it is now considered to be deprecated, that yes they should be changed, but perhaps at the moment there is no overriding need to do that. More important is getting infoboxes onto articles that currently don't have them at all, or are using a much older version that does not look anything like the current version. Obviously  should not be used on any new articles, of course... Martocticvs (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Ship Class 

message: An IP, , is making minor edits to many U.S. fleet submarines, including expanding abbreviated names and adding other very specific details, without citing any sources.  I'm not super-comfortable with this; for the most part, the articles are based directly on DANFS and are therefore well-sourced.  This new information isn't from DANFS, and it sometimes contradicts it.  We all know that DANFS can be wrong, and we've sent them corrections in the past, but we've done so after doing a good bit of research using other reliable sources.  I've left two messages on the IP's talk page requesting that sources be cited.  There have been no edits after the second message.
So here's where I need help: first, if the edits start up again, what do we do?  I certainly don't want to scare off someone with an interest in ships, but we need sources.  Second, what do we do with the edits that have already been made, especially the ones that contradict DANFS? TomTheHand (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a potential new member of the project!  I went ahead and left a welcome message encouraging them to join.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it looks like they stopped editing.  Their last edit was right before your welcome message.  What do we do with these edits?  I'm especially concerned about the ones that contradict DANFS; as I said, DANFS has been wrong many times in the past, but I prefer DANFS over anonymous, unsourced edits. TomTheHand (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced edits to submarine articles 

message: I was going through :Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles and stumbled on this article that has been tagged for our project. the question is, does it really belong within our mandate? Officially it was commissioned as a "ship", but an airship. So, thoughts? -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only because it was commissioned as an official USS vessel?  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually leaning on no, since even if it was commissioned as an official USS vessel, it wasn't an actual water-going ship. And where to we draw the line? There have been (real) ship companies operating airships, should we then by the same logic include those as they were ships operated by a ship company? (Sorry if I'm sounding rude btw, it's 1 in the morning, I should be in bed and I can't tell if I'm being rude or not). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's primarily WP:AVIATION's topic, but we perhaps should take a mild interest in it?  Akron was a commissioned vessel in the U.S. Navy and we should be interested in making sure its appearance remains compatible with that of other USN vessels.  However, for the most part I don't think it's in our jurisdiction.  Perhaps it should have a WP:SHIPS banner, but rated as low importance? TomTheHand (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, while this isn't what our primary focus is on, it is somewhat related and a Low-importance tagging seems justified. The same would go for the three (IIRC) airships the USN had from this time-period as well. -MBK004 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate project creep, so I almost always lean towards a "no" on these sorts of questions; but I am forced to acknowledge the scope on this projects main page is open to it where it says "We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to ships of all types and eras." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm convinced enough to give it a complete assessment, since as Barek noted, ship-related articles also belong to our scope. And while not a proper ship imo, it is definately related. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm... but it looks like there's already an infobox for use on airships that includes length and stuff:  TomTheHand (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but I do want to note that if you guys aren't a big fan of that infobox, we can provide just the image and career sections of the ship infobox (completely leave characteristics off) and you guys can give WP:Aircraft-style statistics at the article bottom.  Our ship infobox isn't well-suited to displaying characteristics of airships, and the custom infobox currently in use is less than ideal. TomTheHand (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: -MBK004 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Akron (ZRS-4)]] 

message: MilHist's infobox conversion page indicates plans to convert usage of old templates  and  to " and ". Before I go griping about  being deprecated, I have to admit I didn't even know about the service record template. I wonder if  will match up nicely with  for display. Can anyone play around with them and magically answer this whilst I sleep? Maralia (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't notice this until just now.  Yes, you can stick  inside an .  I have only one concern, and it's a tiny one.  Because the Career header bar usually contains a flag, it winds up being kind of tall.  The General Characteristics header bar was originally just big enough for the text it contains, but in order for it to match the Career bar better, it's now 30 pixels tall.  Service Record is only as tall as the text it contains.  We could just say "eh, doesn't matter", we could shrink the General Characteristics bar back down again, or we could talk to MILHIST about making the Service Record header 30 pixels tall. TomTheHand (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is intended to be placed under an infobox (like a campaignbox would be), not inside it; I suspect it wouldn't actually work correctly in the latter case. Kirill 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our ship infobox is unusual in that it is four separate templates all enclosed in one table.  If you don't put  inside any of the other templates, but simply stick it between or after them (but before the table is closed out), it seems to me to work fine.  See User:TomTheHand/test. TomTheHand (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  It should be fairly trivial to change the bar height to 30px; so please let me know if that's what you would like to see happen. Kirill 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't cause any problems for you, I would appreciate it.  It would make all of our header bars match in size. TomTheHand (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done.  You'll need to set |is_ship=yes when you use it in the ship infobox to get the height to change. Kirill 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox templates 

message: Just wanted to give everyone the heads-up: it appears that the folks over at WP:MOSNUM are planning on removing the longstanding "link all dates so that they'll autoformat" guideline; if you have an opinion, they might want to hear from you over there, but if not, be prepared for the possibility of editors and bots sweeping through ship articles and de-linking the dates.  We may want to have a discussion about consistent date formatting.  Although MM-DD-YYYY is common in U.S. writing, the U.S. Navy seems to use DD-MM-YYYY, so I think we might be using an awful lot of that format. TomTheHand (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per some of the discussion over there, I would suggest — if this comes to pass — we have the month spelled out. Either "15 December 2007" or "December 15, 2007" is unambiguous. (But I'm sure that's what you were suggesting, too, Tom, right?) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date linking 

message: noted on the Administrators' noticeboard that an automated scan for "potential crap" articles (aka those with no wikilinks and at least one external link) turned up over 6000 candidates.  The following articles on the list appear to fall under the purview of our project and desperately need assistance:
* FACM Class La Combattante IIa
* List of Wickes class destroyers
* USCG 95 foot Cape class patrol boat
* USS Dixon (AS-37) cleaned up a bit
* USS Orion (AS-18) cleaned up a bit
* USS St. Regis River cleaned up a bit
The entire list can be viewed at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 3.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be Crap that has potential. I've wondered why there was no decent La Combattante class article, I've tried to link to one in the past. --Dual Freq 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Wickes class destroyers was apparently forked off from Wickes class destroyer because it's so big.  I would probably lean toward merging it back in, but compacting it into a table that just contains a few key dates.  What do you guys think? TomTheHand 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could probably go along with that, although I'd like to see a column for the individual shipbuilders as well. I don't think these expanded "illustrated lists" serve much purpose because they are neither an easily scanned summary nor an informative article. Gatoclass 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential crap 

message: Today I saw that  was removing  from articles that already have , because the former is the parent category of the latter.  It makes sense, but I'm not a big fan of it, because I think it's useful to be able to look at a single category and see all WWII subs of Japan rather than having to flip through two separate categories to see lost subs and subs that survived the war.  I think we should duplicate the articles across both cats.  I wanted to bring it up here, because it's an issue we haven't addressed in the past.  What does everyone think? TomTheHand (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with having both categories on the pages. I was just approaching it from a parent cat/child cat perspective. I can see the utility of having both in the articles. (I come across so many articles that have parent cats that clutter up the bottom of the article — e.g. , ,  — that I was just trying to help out.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly support removing parent cats in general; I do it myself all the time. I don't think there are many cases where duplication serves any purpose, but I can see a point in keeping both in this case. Maralia (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really useful to maintain a child category for those submarines lost during World War II? Why not just move them all into the parent? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moving articles from cats like  down to something way more specific is important, but I feel like the  structure should stop at the (era) (ship type) of (country) level, like .  I think the lost subs cat is interesting, and I think putting it under World War II submarines of Japan is the most logical place, but I don't think of it as a true child category, more like a separate cat that's placed in Ships by era because that's the most logical way to find it. TomTheHand (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|Japanese submarines lost during World War II}} as a child of {{cl|World War II submarines of Japan}} 

message: Particularly in these three articles:
*USS McCloy (FF-1038)
*USS Donald B. Beary (FF-1085)
*USS Cascade (AD-16)
Some of the articles have DANFS entries which have then been added to (more like hurled with reckless abandon) with a huge block of text from a source that I haven't been able to locate. The idea was to clean up these articles with wiki links etc but I hardly see why an effort should be made to do this if references cannot be determined and the material should be removed. I've left notes on the talk pages for the exact problems. Any thoughts? --Brad (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've chopped up USS Donald B. Beary (FF-1085), as it was an apparent copyvio of . Maralia (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I would have called that a copyvio.  If it really is the "Command History", military.com cannot claim copyright over a US Gov't document.  Unfortunately, until http://www.history.navy.mil/decomship/index.htm gets properly populated, I guess we have to err on the side of caution that military.com may have written their own summary.  --J Clear (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material in articles. 

message: hi folks,
I have been in touch with the chap behind Shipbucket, Mr Martin Conrads to get his permission for the drawings to be used as illustrations for our articles. 
I will update all on the status and what sort of attribution is required by him.
http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/
Koxinga CDF (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It would be fantastic if we could use those drawings. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that for us to be able to use them, he will have to release them under a GFDL or compatible licence, effectively allowing anyone and everyone to use them: not just Wikipedia. But great if he agrees!! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that it was possible for people to release images for use only on Wikipedia? I'm sure that I've seen images tagged in this way. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No - if you've seen images claiming this, then they're being used incorrectly. There are only two grounds on which we can use images: if they're freely reproducible by anyone and everyone, or if we're invoking "fair use". Even then, "fair use" images are only permitted under very limited and strict conditions. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page explains what terms an image must be licensed under to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.  The rules are pretty much the same for Wikipedia, except Wikipedia allows fair use images under the limited conditions that Rlandmann mentioned. TomTheHand (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have proposed to used the creative commons license 3.0 after checking over that the image licensing talk page. Do note, I understand that several artists are also working with him and it is not a solo effort.
Koxinga CDF (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I was confused: the 'ticket' system I was thinking of is a way to designate that previously copyrighted images have in fact been licensed under a creative commons license in which the image's creator is attributed at all times - :Image:Belle and Sebastian British Band.jpeg is an example. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipbucket Drawings 

message: Please see a notice about standardizing this template, at Template talk:Warship#Standardization. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put together a modified form of the Warship template in my user space and posted about it at Template talk:Warship#Standardization.  I could really use some feedback; please check it out!  Thanks! TomTheHand (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Warship}} 

message: The article about the Vasa has now been nominated for FA status. Input and insights from members of this project would be very much appreciated. henrik•talk 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vasa (ship)]] is back, this time for FAC 

message: This is something that's been bothering me for a while. The spacing between one line of text and the next in ship infoboxes is very wide. I don't think it's very aesthetic, and it makes the infoboxes very long -often longer than the accompanying article! Is there something that can be done about this?
On a more specific note, I've also noticed that the text spacing in ship class infobox image captions is far wider than in ship infoboxes themselves, and it looks wrong to me. Case in point: Owasco class cutter - look how much wider the image caption spacing is there as opposed to a ship in the class, say USCGC Sebago (WHEC-42). Also, does the text in the image captions have to be centre aligned? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it left-aligned? Gatoclass (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text spacing issue differences may be down to using the "small" tag in the Class template but not in the ship infobox template. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text spacing in infoboxes 

message: I posted about the merge of the FAC and patrol vessel categories, but I think it got buried and nobody made their way over there.  Please check it out: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_14#Category:Small_combatant_classes.  There seem to be a few people in support of "small combat vessels", with opposition to "small combatant classes" because people are under the impression that it can refer to something other than... FACs and patrol boats.  Please head over there and chip in.  I'm worried that it's going to be renamed to "small combat vessels" instead of "small combat vessel classes", which would be horrendous. TomTheHand (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC/patrol vessel merge 

message: I have just proposed renaming :Category:Hipper class cruisers to :Category:Admiral Hipper class cruisers in accordance with the class article's name. See the proposal here.
Also, in case anyone missed it above, I proposed renaming :Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers to :Category:YMS-1 class minesweepers. That proposal is here. Maralia (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor category renames 

message: Hello.  has moved SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) to SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), replacing the "ß" with "ss". Is this in accordance with WP:Ships naming conventions, or should the move and associated edits be reverted? There are quite a few other German ships that have non-standard characters; if a precedent to use only standard English characters is set, they'll all have to be changed. Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I like the idea of retaining the original spelling, but on the other hand, we keep Yamato at Japanese battleship Yamato, not Japanese battleship 大和.  Where would we draw the line of which foreign characters to retain and which to transliterate? TomTheHand (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), specifically "There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð." Personally, I consider it a pretty immaterial difference, as long as an appropriate redirect exists at the alternate spelling. Consistency would be wise, though. Maralia (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly favour retaining the use of ß, ð etc in cases like this. Redirects from expanded spellings can be supplied quite easily enough after all. And there is a pretty huge difference between a latin ligature and Japanese characters... Martocticvs (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself would prefer to keep the ligatures and other nonstandard characters, but if it's decided that expanded spelling is preferable, I'll be alright with that too. However, I would like to ensure consistency in our articles. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to admit that I'm not an expert on ship naming conventions on wikipedia; I apologize if I have rudely trodden on nautical turf.  I don't think that my edit should set a precedent that "only standard English characters be used"--that's too much of a blanket rule which I'm sure will turn up problems (especially since no consensus exists for characters such as ß, þ and ð and others; this is different from 大和, which I think does have consensus).  I like consistentcy, but I think we should be consistent about the principle "only general English usage should be used" rather than some algorithmic rule that 'we always use "ß"' or 'only use "ss"'.  If we are guided by English usage, as suggested by reference works, academic discourse, contemporary and modern media, google searches, etc. etc. we can be descriptive rather than proscriptive; English usage provide a verifiable and NPOV standard.  We don't draw the line about which spelling to use, the larger English speaking community does; our job is just to report the convention.Erudy (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct now, perhaps - but they recently sorted out their spelling rules to correct some misuses and to standardise more. In that vain, preferring Grosse over Große would be no different to renaming  to , as that is the currently accepted spelling. Martocticvs (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) (which claims this to be the common practive, although I failed to locate the same line in other naming convention articles), modern writing form should be the preferred one, with the original form explained in the text. Following this logic, even if the original name was with an "ß", the article name should be with "ss", and the "ß" should be explained in the article text. But then again, as you say, this would mean the 1774 Enterprize should be written Enterprise. Looking at the article in question, the name is consistently written with an "s" in the article text, only the article name uses "z". And, although I'm generally not big on rules, I have to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions states that "generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". I'd say "ss" is definately more recognizable than "ß". -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ß" or "ss" ? 

message: There is a fictional ship article for DDG-182 Mirai, does it fall under WP:SHIPS? Also, does it strike anyone as odd that no single ship of the Kongō class or Atago class has its own article, but a fictional ship similar to the two classes has one? If articles were to be created, what is the naming convention for JDS ship articles? Would JDS Kongō (DDG-173) or Japanese destroyer Kongō (DDG-173) be used? Looking at other post WWII Japanese ship class articles reveals that there are very few individual ship articles, which makes DDG-182 Mirai fictional article stand out even further. Anybody up for creating some ship stubs for Japan? --Dual Freq (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it falls within our scope as it's a sea-going ship, even if a fictional one. The article name is definately incorrect by our naming conventions though - but then again, we probably shouldn't call it Japanese destroyer Mirai (DDG-182) or people will be thinking it's a real ship. And I can't say I'd be very surprised with a fictional ship having an article over real ones - in my experience of Wikipedia, information on fiction (TV series in particular) is the thing this place is best for. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While I admit the pretend Mirai is pretty useless from our point of view, it might not be from the point of view of WP:Anime. Since we're on the subject, it might be good for us to reach a concensus on how to treat fictional vessels. Looking through :Category:Fictional ships, I was able to find two that have been tagged for us. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could only find one, but perhaps I missed the other.  The one I did find was Theodore Too, which I tagged as it is an actual tug boat, but done up to look like one off children's TV series.  I'm fairly sure this one at least is legitimately under our purview.  As to fictional ones, I wouldn't object to seeing them under our project, as they technically are representations of watercraft, and should be of at least peripheral interest to us.  But perhaps with a low rating.  Though I don't have desperately strong feelings either way.  Benea (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other tagged fictional ones are USS Aspen (should probably be merged into Full Fathom Five) and Red October (submarine). I agree that if we do tag fictional ships, they should be low-importance. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional ship [[DDG-182 Mirai]] has an article but no individual [[Kongō class destroyer]] has its own article 

message: There are a couple of cats in category :Category:United States Coast Guard ships that don't look right to me. They are :Category:USCG high endurance cutters and :Category:USCG medium endurance cutters. Since they are already subcats of the Coast Guard cat, why do they need the "USCG" tacked on? Shouldn't these cats just be  :Category:High endurance cutters and :Category:Medium endurance cutters? Gatoclass 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my mistake again. I made those cats to match the class articles (which were misnamed). As an aside, I think there was a discussion to rename / delete :Category:Famous class cutters because of a perception that some might think it has something to do with truancy. I think all that was resolved, so I certainly have no objection to renaming. --Dual Freq 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.  A class category should occur many times at the bottom of articles, which is where most users will encounter it.  At the bottom of an article, you would not have the USCG Ships parent category to provide disambiguation (articles should only include the most specific leaf category(s) extant, no parents).  While it should be evident from the article that USCG is involved, you wouldn't know from looking at at the shortened category name you propose, if you were going to get to a broader category, perhaps involving other nations.  In another case, as an editor trying to improve that article, you might think that some past editor had put the article in too general a category and then waste time trying to fix it.  So what may be redundancy from the category tree perspective is useful from the mainspace perspective.  Hopefully that made sense.  --J Clear (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Guard categories 

message: I just rewrote USS Illinois (BB-65) to improve her shot at passing FAC, but I need new eyes to correct the sp&g errors and ensure that I didn;t leave anything out. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went over it twice and caught several calibur vs caliber and other typo things. The only issues I saw left over was spelling like travelling vs traveling. Both are correct depending where you live. --Brad (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I took a read.  I'm good with most of it.  The first para in "Scrapping" needs help though.  Starting with the first sentence that seems to imply the scrapping took place immediately.  I think you were trying to summarize the entire para in the lead sentence, but it didn't come off right.  Also may want to reduce talking about Kentucky a bit, both there and further up.  Too far past my bedtime to try to sort it out myself, so I'll leave a note here. --J Clear (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC pre-review request (was:Help) 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: List of future Spanish Navy ships 

message: Has anyone ever heard or seen a legitimate explanation from a reliable source as to why the USN does not use forward ski jumps on it's LHAs and LHDs? They vessels are larger than just about any other aircraft-capable ship in service save supercarriers, and yet much smaller carrier-type ships have jumps. Is it soley related to how the USN spots aircraft on flight decks (using every space available), or are there other reasons? I'm really looking for some citeable material, not just informed specualtion, but that would be OK too, as it's always fun to hear other opinions. But I'd really like to put some cited explanations in some articles I've been working on, such as those on the LHA and LHD, as this questions has come up on some of the ship talk pages. (Stating this clearly to hopefully avoid the obnoxious Talk pages are not forums response that some like give to experianced editors as if they were newbies!) - BillCJ (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen a reliable source explain it, but this thread offers a few random Internet theories.  There's a "it's all politics" theory, a "LHAs and LHDs are longer than most foreign carriers, and so don't need a ski jump as badly" theory, and a "they need the space for simultaneously launching as many Marine-filled helicopters as possible" theory, among others.  I wonder if Norman Friedman's U.S. Amphibious Ships and Craft has anything about it.  It was updated in 2002 and apparently goes far enough forward to mention the San Antonio-class LPD, so it probably covers the LHAs and LHDs in good detail.  The two closest counties to me don't have it in their libraries, and neither does my alma mater; another university in the area has it, but it's checked out 'til next May (jeez!).  Anyone else have any leads? TomTheHand (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in an interlibrary loan request back when this came up here, and just got notice that it should arrive in a few days. I'll see what I can dig up. Maralia (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: GlobalSecurity copied an entry from the USN pub ENLISTED AVIATION WARFARE SPECIALIST saying "Because of the desire to maximize the number of deck spots, no ski-jump V/STOL ramp is fitted", GlobalSecurity appears to have added "reducing the potential effectiveness of the Harrier contingent," but I've seen other internet claims that say the ships are long enough for a full load. My question would be, since I'm not to up on the AV-8B, is the AV-8B limited in ordnance or fuel when used on the Wasp class vs used at a normal runway land base? My opinion, though not worth much since I have no special knowledge of this, is that it was more important to be "capable of spotting nine CH-53E helicopters at once" for some tactical reason than to give up two of those spots for a (minimal?) performance increase on the Harriers. Is 9 CH-53's enough to take an entire company of Marines into battle or some other tactical unit? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ski jump 

message: I just applied  to  as normal... only it seems to have messed up two of the categories and I cannot understand why, as they are unchanged from their original forms... Martocticvs (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, some hidden characters were added to the end of the cat names.  I edited them to purge the hidden characters, and they seem to work correctly now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange! Thanks for that. Martocticvs (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat wierdness 

message: I have updated  (and its documentation) to allow for disambiguation of the ship type (a problem with "minesweeper"). I tested the changes before implementing them, so I hope there won't be any issues with the changes. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been meaning to make that very change for quite some time now—thanks! Maralia (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent thank you! One other addition to the template that would be quite useful would be the ability to disambiguate the class name itself. For example, Boyne class ship of the line (1790) and Boyne class ship of the line (1810). So the year needs to be added to the class article link but not the ship type link. Martocticvs (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated {{tl|sclass}} with optional disambiguation parameter 

message: We have no article at all which deals with the roll of a ship, except possibly flight dynamics. Can someone think of a name for one? Could it be added to the wanted articles list? The Land (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah-ha. yes. Thank you! The Land (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is yet another example of an article (Ship motions) that has had way too much added to it.  The whole section on Seakeeping should be off on its own.  It is treated too lightly here and is out of place. Jmvolc (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily I had just started seakeeping. ;) The Land (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll 

message: I'm having a problem getting the importance of using Reliable sources over government propoganda across to an editor who ought to know better, and would rather not fight this battle on my own. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Indian Navy for the full explanation. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: India has a Navy? --Brad (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They had no choice: Pakistan has one! - BillCJ (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Navy 

message: I've nominated Shibumi2 to become an administrator here. He has been working hard for a year, getting Wikipedia articles on Japanese Navy ships to conform to WP:SHIPS standards. Please join me in supporting his nomination. Thank you! Neutral Good (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA for Shibumi2 

message: Does anyone have an idea what the stripe or bump is that runs nearly the length of hull above the waterline on Kirov class battlecruisers? See also commons:Category:Kirov class battlecruiser for more images that show same stripe. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess - and it is only a guess, though somewhat educated - is that it is an external degaussing cable.  had one until a refit in 1942, as can be seen in this image :Image:HMS King George V in 1941.jpg. Martocticvs (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I never thought of that, it sounds like a very good guess. I was trying to figure if it was some ESM or sonar related device, but the degaussing cable makes more sense. I won't add it to the article, but it makes sense to me. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are indirect references that it is meant for degaussing. Interestingly enough, the website of the Krylov Institute has plenty of information on the Kursk recovery as well as photos of a number of pre-WWII Russian naval vessels. Warrants additional research. Anyone keen?
http://www.enemyforces.com/navy/1144.htm
Krylov Institute: http://www.ksri.ru/eng1
Koxinga CDF (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirov class hull question 

message: An unregistered user added a load of additional length fields to this part of the template earlier - firstly one of them is not correctly implemented, so it is showing up all the time, whether filled or not, and I don't know how to fix that. Secondly, I don't think that it is necessary to have lots of dedicated fields for different length measurements. These infoboxes are meant to keep things simple, and as with the armament field it is quite easy to put (keel) or (gundeck) or (overall) or whatever else you happen to be measuring after the measurement in question. With these extra fields I think it is now unnecessarily bloated. Martocticvs (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some edit undos that I think have the template back to before the anonymous editor changed them. Perhaps we should consider protection of some sort for these templates? Especially since they are so widely used. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's probably not a bad idea - they could possibly be considered as vulnerable due to their extensive use now... Martocticvs (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to {{tl|Infobox Ship Characteristics}} 

message: and stuff.  As per our Dab guidelines, HMS Amethyst (U16/F116) ought to be moved I think.  My preference would be to HMS Amethyst (F116) over the redirect, since that was the pennant number she carried when she got caught up in the Amethyst Incident.  But that's a job for an administrator and since I am unaccountably not one, could someone help?  Ta muchly, Benea (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy new year to all 

message: Seriously, how many different "Infobox Ship"-type templates are there now out there? 3, 4, 5, 6, more? Not to mention all the infoboxes in free HTML coding. I was trying to create a couple of ship articles here and decided to copy a infobox from an existing article. I became a little suspicious when I ran into one that I hadn't seen before, so off I went to see WikiProject Ships recommendations....*sigh* sadly I found that it seemed like it hasn't even been possible to standardize here, on the project page. The templates section even lists one that one is "discouraged" to use. Please, could we try to fix this thing during 2008? One template for all - or is that too optimistic?. --MoRsE (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do, in fact, have one standard template for ship infoboxes—— and we've been systematically deprecating, replacing, and deleting nonstandard ship infobox templates for months now. It sounds like maybe I've forgotten to update some documentation that. . .oh yes, I see it now: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tools#Infobox templates must be what's confused you. I'll update that right now to clarify standards. If you've come across any other incorrect/confusing information, or any specific nonstandard ship infoboxes (we're aware of those in :Category:Defunct WikiProject Ships templates), please link to them so I can get to work. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's  thats not been updated since mid-06. has 20-odd ships using it. One less now I've done the Wicher GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I wasn't aware of that one. We also have  and  to convert; for those who didn't know,  there's more information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Infobox conversion. Maralia (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One template to use in them all and to a standardized format bind them 

message: I just found Template:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship classes, and it seems a bit off from the format of most current navboxes. There are no built-in edit links at the top, and the whole template isn't boxed in. I know nothing about navbox formatting and codework. Can someone see if they can bring this up to spec? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd navbox 

message: Gneisenau class battlecruiser to Scharnhorst class battleship 
Please discuss at Talk:Gneisenau_class_battlecruiser#Requested_move. The Land (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: 

message: I've been trying to look at articles in "Korean War xxx ships of the United States" cats and have a question about whether two three (oops!) ships belong in the . According to their articles/DANFS, , , and  ferried aircraft to Japan in support of the Korean War, but never participated in a combat role. I'm leaning towards including them as Korean War aircraft carriers, but wanted to see what others thought. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I always have difficulty with cases like this.  All three ships served in the Military Sea Transportation Service, the predecessor of the Military Sealift Command, during Korea.  That makes me want to call them .  It's not just that they didn't happen to see combat; they were actually serving in an auxiliary organization. TomTheHand (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I added  to all three articles — Bellhalla (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about {{cat|Korean War aircraft carriers of the United States}} 

message: I could use some help keeping an eye on King Sejong the Great class destroyer. It's had a lot of IP traffic of late, many adding what appears to be POV commentary, with no sources - of course. I don't know engough about destroyers in general or this class in particular to recognize outright errors. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article patrol 

message: Click here for details. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Mos Amendment that affects this project 

message: Hello WP:Ships, I need help from your project with the MS Nindawayma article. I'm not a ship expert, but rather a locak historian. Could someone please review all the recent edits made by an anonymous user for factuality. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS Nindawayma 

message: Is there a consensus on what types of articles should populate this category? Is it just civilian tankers, i.e. , or Navy tankers, like  or . And what about oilers like, for example,  that are already in the category? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cat|World War II tankers of the United States}} 

message: Ok, so as you know, our new ship infobox is made up of four templates: , , , and .  It's little confusing, so I created  as a central location for documenting it.  I made it a template so that people would transclude it wherever documentation was needed; I had noticed that the old infobox had out-of-date documentation scattered everywhere.
I did this before /doc subpages became popular, or at least before I heard about them.  However, /doc pages are a much better way of managing template documentation.  Looking at it now, I kind of think we should do something about Infobox Ship Example.  That's not the name of the infobox, it's the infobox's documentation template.  However, it looks like that's its name, and I've got to assume that people look at it and wonder why the hell we call it that.
Does anyone else agree that we should address this?  Perhaps make Infobox Ship Example a /doc subpage?  If so, a subpage of what? TomTheHand (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing when I recently arrived at this project for the first time.  Personally, I think that "Infobox Ship Begin/doc" would be the best place to put it, as that template is the first one used on the current infobox formatting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When I was looking into protecting them just now, I saw it was a bit of a complicated mess. I was about to start doc pages for them all but I will wait a bit if needed. Woody (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: None here. The current name caused confusion at one point where people were talking about redirecting defunct templates to this one, so I had to point out that this is just documentation - using the current convention for documentation definitely makes sense to me! Martocticvs (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Everything looks good to me!  Thanks for taking care of this.  I think, though, that redirecting all of the talk pages to Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc is probably a good idea.  I'm going to do that now. TomTheHand (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and the talkpages seems sensible. Woody (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Infobox Ship Example" is a silly, silly name 

message: Right, after quite a bit of work, I have moved Example to Begin/doc, then moved all the documentation of the separate pages to /doc pages and then protected all of the main template pages. The templates affected are , , , . I have also created the talk pages for the templates to add  to them although you could create redirects to Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc. What do people think, and did I miss any of the templates? Woody (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks good to me!  Thanks for taking care of this.  I think, though, that redirecting all of the talk pages to Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc is probably a good idea.  I'm going to do that now. TomTheHand (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and the talkpages seems sensible. Woody (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on progress

message: I just nominated the newly-created :Category:Turkish Navy ship classes for deletion here because it does not fit into our categorization scheme.  Please weigh in.  Thanks! TomTheHand (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Turkish Navy ship classes 

message: Some of you may have dealt with the user who keeps adding POV info to the USS Holland and Electric Boat articles. If I'm not mistaken, the user has been blocked/banned for these actions. He is now active on the General Dynamics page, as per this diff. If reverted him twice, but am reluctant to revert more, even tho I don't see this as a content dispute. Now, I've been reverted by my stalker, a not-very-bright troll (banned user:Wikzilla) who thinks that by reverting me, and harrassing editors who come to my aid, he will be reinstated. (When the troll reads this, he will get mad, and strike out at me and someone else.) any help would be appreciated. - BillCJ (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Holland guy was banned from Wikipedia.  He just received a two-week block for sockpuppetry.  I've blocked the IP that did all of that reverting, but I'll have to look further at the Holland guy. TomTheHand (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More USS Holland POV 

message: I've reverted additions to Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier which removed . I've requested that the editor stop and discuss before making unilateral changes of this nature. I think a discussion is now required, as to if the ship should be considered a member of the class or not. -MBK004 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: has added links from a number of carrier and amphibious assault ship pages to their pages on uscarriers.net.  Those are the only edits he's made, which makes me suspect that it's his own web site.  It seems to violate the first guideline of WP:LINK's "Links normally to be avoided": it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."  I was planning to remove the links and ask him not to add more, but I wanted to see if anyone had any objections first. TomTheHand (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too. The links are kind of useful in that the site has some operational histories that are more up-to-date than most of our articles, but that's not really clear from the descriptive text he's adding—and someone should point out to him that the way he's adding the links is likely to cause them to be flagged and reverted as spam, regardless of any COI and without consideration of the value of the links. I'm about to head out the door, but I'll do it later if no one else beats me to it. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note on his talk page, but that account hasn't had any other activity since, and it doesn't look like any other account is adding those links now. Maralia (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to USCarriers.net 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Polish Navy}}]] 

message: I have opened an RfC to try to resolve this issue, which is proving very difficult. Please take a look at:
Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F. The Land (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship naming RfC: Scharnhorst - battleship or battlecruiser? 

message: I've replaced all instances of  and nominated it for deletion at WP:TfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting obsolete templates - revisit 

message: Can someone with appropriate sources check as to whether  was really wrecked in 1703? I'm using Brian Lavery's Ship of the Line vol 1 currently, where she is listed as being rebuilt in 1710 - no hint of being caught up in the storm. Martocticvs (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vanguard - sunk in the Medway during the Great storm of 1703, raised in 1704.  Rebuilt at Chatham between 1705-10 as 1,551bm, then as 1,625bm.  Renamed HMS Duke on 26 July 1728, broken up in August 1769 at Plymouth. All in Colledge.  Benea (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid, thank you. Martocticvs (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this ''Vanguard'' wrecked? 

message: As you may know, in October  was modified to add an optional parameter: an external link to a DANFS entry.  In December,  suggested that  be similarly updated, and that the templates should really take up to two parameters, so that they could link simultaneously to the Navy's copy of DANFS and Hazegray.org's, or link to two names that the ship served under.  I made both of those changes today. TomTheHand (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much! Being able to link within the template is helping to clean up article appearance a lot and at the same time provide a reliable reference. --Brad (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, glad it helps.  Um, if there's anything else I've promised to do for anyone, then failed to follow through on over the past few weeks, please remind me about it.  Been really busy. TomTheHand (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a WP:SHIPS person, can you provide an example of each of those types of references?  I have worked on many WP:NRHP historic site articles, especially National Historic Landmarks, which sometimes are ships, sometimes with that vague DANFS tag.  I would like to update those tags on ships that are NHLs so they point to specific texts, and any tip on how to find the DANFS original text if it is not obvious.  I would v. much appreciate duplicate response to my talk page, in case i don't get back here.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Doncram!  This is the web site for the Naval Vessel Register.  If you click the "Quickfind" link you can search for ships by type or by the first letter of their name.  This is the Navy's web site for DANFS.  Click on the first letter of the ship's name to work your way to the ship's specific page.  This is Hazegray.org's copy of DANFS; it was most useful before the Navy had all of DANFS online, but at this time I think the Navy's is a better resource because it continues to be updated.  Please let us know if you have any more questions. TomTheHand (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply here and to Brad for helpfully pointing me to more discussion of this. doncram (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to {{tl|DANFS}} and {{tl|NVR}} 

message: The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully resolved by consolidation of many separate List of Liberty ships component articles into just 4 chunks that are sortable by name or by hull number. doncram (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Liberty ships by hull number articles 

message: Is anyone particularly attached to the behemoth that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/footers? It's unbearably large and consequently (at least for me) stops actually displaying the templates less than halfway down the page. I'm sure it served a purpose before the templates were standardized for formatting and categorized in :Category:Naval navigational boxes, but at this point it's terribly unwieldy and incomplete. I think it has outlived its usefulness now that footer templates are (largely) properly standardized and categorized. I'd like to go through it section by section, confirming that each template is standardized/categorized, then purging sections as I go, ultimately resulting in deleting the page. We can easily cover footers from a guidelines standpoint by updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tools#Ship class footers to describe standard formatting and include a link to the category. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zapping this 37 kB sounds like a good plan to me!  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's messy all right. If there isn't a way to make the page load with the footer boxes closed then it will only become worse than it is now. I would be concerned about making it easy as possible for those who don't know their way around the ship project to find these footers, however. I recall that I had trouble finding the right footers at one point. --Brad (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigational footers 

message: These two articles, Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) are intriguing me at the moment.  They are the same ship, which was reconstructed as a missile cruiser in the late 50s/early 60s.  Ordinarily we would deal with the two incarnations in the same article, and it seems that this logic would apply to this case (same name, navy, role, etc).  I guess the rearmament of the Iowas into guided missile platforms rather than big gun ships might be an appropriate comparison.  In those cases we have the ship's history in one article, with a section dealing with the refits.  Should the same be done here, or not?  I don't have desperately strong opinions (a vague preference for a merge) so thoughts and feelings on a postcard please.  ttfn, Benea (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be merged, given that it's the same ship, just rebuilt, so the precedent with the Iowas is quite valid. Also, the articles are fairly short; it would be better to merge them and create a decent length article out them. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are pretty short articles, so I'd agree it would make more sense to merge them into Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) and have an additional characteristics section in the infobox. Martocticvs (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can merge the two.  Give me a couple of minutes ...  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  I just did a few cosmetic edits after merging the two page histories, so someone should probably give it a closer look.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless you sir! Benea (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I could help!  Seeing the ship split into two articles certainly was different.  After all, we certainly have plenty of examples of single-article ships on decommissioned WWII cruisers that were converted into guideded missile cruisers (all of the members of the , , etc.)  Regardless, doing my first article merge was very exciting!  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the whole thing took about 5 minutes from the issue being flagged to the final copyedits. Drinks all round! Benea (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles that should be one? 

message: The article Aces of the Deep needs to be renamed to List of U-boat aces, however, given that the redirect already exists, I can't do it myself and still retain the article history. The current name is wretchedly melodramatic, not to mention a likely copyvio of the computer simulator of the same name from 1994. Also, the article name as it stands implies that the top scoring aces from all countries, from all time periods, not just Germany during World War II, are included. The proposed name fits in line with present "List of..." standards. Thanks for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ... wow am I on a roll today!  Uh oh ... I better stop before my wife finds out and hands me a honey-do list!  --Kralizec! (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little help from an admin-type is required 

message: * A discussion about the style for PD text is under way at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content. (From WP:AVIATION) It seems to apply to this project in that the massive amount of DANFS material would have to be placed in quotations under one user's proposal. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content]] 

message: I've noticed the infobox doesn't have a field for ship type, but only for "type and class". Unless I'm missing something, this becomes a problem IMO when you have an article on a ship that has a type but no class, like say, a schooner, or a sloop etc. Also, I couldn't see a "cost" field in the sailing ship sub-infobox, so if you want to include the cost field you (presumably) have to use the entire infobox (haven't checked the other sub-infoboxes). Can these little problems be fixed? Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take care of both.  Note that anyone can edit the sub-infoboxes themselves by copying fields from the full code if they like, or you can use fields from the full code on a case-by-case basis.  There are some rarely used fields that aren't in any of the simplified code, but you don't need to copy the full code to get them, just use the fields you want. TomTheHand (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tom :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship infobox again 

message: Check it out: USS Illinois (BB-65). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent test case delete of an article on a USN harbour tugboat might be worth including in that debate. If I remember correctly, that AfD concluded that all commissioned ships are automatically notable enough for their own article, though there was a strong preference for lumping minor ships with routine service histories together in articles on the class. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Notification 

message: Has anyone got a copy of Colledge to hand? If so, could they look over HMS Blanche please. Thanks. Woody (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given it the once over, filled in missing ships and tweaked the formatting. Benea (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou.  Woody (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colledge 

message: An editor keeps removing sourced information about the manufacturers of this ship's components, claiming that it's advertising and not relevant. It seems to me that it's perfectly relevant in an article about a particular ship to give the details of its construction, and would appreciate any comments (either pro or con) at Talk:No. 1 (yacht). Thanks, Jfire (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a comment to the bottom of the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 1 (yacht) 

message: Currently on infoboxes we have a standard graphic reading No Photo Available. This is all well and good for ships from the mid-19th century onwards, when photos started to become more common, but for anything that ended its life before that time its either very unlikely, or simply impossible that a photo would exist, let alone be available - but paintings often are. So 'No Image Available' would seem to make more sense here. Martocticvs (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like an eminently reasonable suggestion. Should we just modify :Image:No Photo Available.svg, or create a new one entirely? Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating a new image would potentially entail going through changing all current uses of the No Photo image... although having two in active use is not such a major problem. Martocticvs (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention that, because I've been thinking exactly the same thing myself over the last few days (having recently created a bunch of articles on the first ten Revenue Service cutters). In fact I was thinking about making an image myself, although I have very little experience with PC paint programs. But I guess it wouldn't be hard to make such an image, would it? Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised it because there is some disagreement over the image's use going on at Talk:HMS Cornwall (1692). Also, changing that image is simply a case of grabbing its source code, changing the word, and resaving - SVG is quite straightforward really. Martocticvs (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have found an image that already exists that addresses our concerns: :Image:Insert image here.svg. We can always just change the wording to match the other if we want to. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, please; I beg of you! Whatever you decide, let's not have to change every other existing file already in use. --Brad (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Part of the argument against the use of the image on that page is that if there is no image available at all, then the image is going to remain on the page conceivably forever, and they are asking if there isn't a less visible method we could use to keep track of ship articles lacking images. I had a thought about making the template place the article in a category for ship articles lacking images, but then I thought that having that sort of administrative category on a page is not so appealing (though of course it is done frequently enough for articles lacking sources, needing wikifying, etc...) Martocticvs (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good point; if there isn't a mechanism we can use to track which articles need images, it's unlikely that we'll be able to fix them, unless we were working on the specific article anyway. Perhaps something like a talk page template, like the Template:Ship infobox request to denote articles that need an infobox. That way, it would place the category on the talk page. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a mechanism. If you click on (for example) :Image:No Photo Available.svg, you'll see a list of articles that are using that particular image. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Photo or No Image? 

message: Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects. 
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project 

message: I'm dangling dangerously close to 3RR on . An IP is removing mention of an operation with a corresponding article, claiming that they were onboard at the time and the event did not happen. I've asked them to provide a proper citation to prove their assertions, but I don't want to revert again. Can someone help? -MBK004 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Statement in question now cited, but keep an eye on the article for a while. -MBK004 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help... 

message: I found this little toy today:  and I think it could be a deadly weapon in my hands since I'm still doing audits and checking conditions of articles. We of course have our own  but its more suited for an article that has no infobox at all. I guess the question is whether I should affix one or the other to articles needing the new super improved infobox? I would expect the list to grow very long, very quickly. --Brad (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be useful for tagging articles that have non-template infoboxes, like old hardcoded tables—but it would be redundant to tag articles that use deprecated infobox templates, since 'what links here' is a more accurate way to tackle replacing those. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be safe to say that the old hardcoded tables are dark blue in color as opposed to the template ones being light blue? I see light blue templates out there but very few of them look like the intergalactic all-new template :) --Brad (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the dark blue should always be a table. There were a few old dark blue nonstandard templates, but we've done away with them all. Maralia (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've changed that template a bit to put the ship articles in a separate category.  places the pages in :Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the sound of that - there are loads of articles with the ancient table boxes on and we've been lacking a suitable way of tagging those until now - good find! Martocticvs (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ooohhh, how deliciously Evil! Muuwahaha! I will wait for more comments before I start blasting. The  already has over 600 articles on the list and this new one will add hundreds more I'm sure. But maybe tagging them will help people find them who aren't aware they could use 'what links here' on the old template page. --Brad (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there are in fact 666 of those... so the evil laughter is quite appropriate! :D Martocticvs (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And I think that tagging the deprecated ones is probably a good idea for that reason. It won't hurt, at any rate. Martocticvs (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.  If our infoboxes were a problem, the developers would say something about it.  Since they haven't, it's not; you're not in a position to speculate about what is and is not a problem for Wikipedia's servers. TomTheHand (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I liked this quote: But don't go running around screaming "the servers, the servers!!!" as an excuse to not do stuff, that's stupid. --Brad (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will someone please think of the servers! :) Benea (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We've had a standard template for quite some time. Have you actually looked at any of our project documentation? Your input would be a lot more useful if you familiarized yourself with what already exists. You might want to start at WP:SHIPS, especially the 'Project documentation' section of the box on the right side. Maralia (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Or if you reverse the order, you have what we already use.  Select the drop down for the appropriate ship article from , then copy/paste the template code shown to the article, then fill in the relevant fields, leaving blank the ones not needed.  Instantly you get a consistently styled infobox for ship articles.  No special program needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depreciated Infoboxes. 

message: Fishy.. USS Carlinville (PC-1120) Not in DANFS; not in a word search at NHC; not on the NVR; not on a word search at WP except to turn up the same article. Text of article looks like a DANFS entry yet there are some statements that are not DANFS style. Anyone else concur this is fudge? --Brad (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article appears to be sourced primarilly from navsource.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) How odd.  Navsource does have a page: .  This Navy document does list USS Carlinville, PC-1120, and has a date sold that isn't mentioned in the article but that does fit with its story: .  The following page lists PC-1120 as one of the ship grounded in the 9 August 1945 typhoon, and it's odd that the article doesn't mention it: . TomTheHand (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the older history is accurate, but I think that's the right hull number for the ship which was off Berkeley for those time periods.  I live in the area and saw it many times.  Would be good to find more corroborating sources though.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Part of the style differences seen in the article could also be due to it being created from a submital at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-11#USS_Carlinville_.28PC-1120.29 - so the text could just be dated style-wise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know, it looks to me like the guy who wrote it has put it in his own words, it's not a copyvio. So I don't see the need to stub it, but Navsource obviously needs to be properly attributed. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right. At least our author left out the comment For a few years it became a eco-hippie floating flophouse ...lol Apparently someone at navsource is a bit biased. --Brad (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed the Navsource account is a tad colourful :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accurate, however.  That's pretty much how it was referred to even in the local hippie press...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS ''Carlinville'' (PC-1120) this one smells.