Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 4

message: Folks, I've uploaded some external and internal snaps of replica HMB Endeavour at :commons:Category:Endeavour — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 13:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Images Uploaded 

message: Has anyone noticed: Template:WAFerry? It looks huge, takes up about 3/4 of my 1024x768 screen resolution. Would the standard ships infobox be more appropriate for the ~30 ferries transcluded? --Dual Freq 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything much about templates so I don't know if the normal ships one can be made to work for this (easily), but it shouldn't be too hard to make this one look the same as the normal ship one... Martocticvs 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've slimmed it down to 300px from 500px but that still leaves the matter of having two templates for Ferries and a main ship template. Should all these be merged? I think the Ferry ones should be merged, but I'm not sure how to implement. The WAFerry one has more information and a few more articles that use it than the regular ferry one. Any ideas? --Dual Freq 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:WAFerry 

message: The use of naval templates for commercial vessels has caused problems, amd has led to confusion between displacement and tonnage, launch date and service entry date, etc.  There is an effort beginning now to standardize a template for commercial vessels.  See Template:Infobox Commercial Ship and the related talk page.  Perhaps that page belongs here.  It is time however to create a specialized template for commercial vessels, and in all likliehood a number of templates for different kinds of vessels.  Your thoughts are requested. Template_talk:Infobox_Commercial_Ship  Thank you. Kablammo 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea.  Would it also apply to USNS ships or civilian ships that used to be run by the Navy and aren't any more?  I work on a lot of articles for those types of ships and would be interested in the box having an option for dates they were run by the navy as well as commercial dates. --JAYMEDINC 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template could work for any commercial vessel, including those in naval service.  It could also work for ferries-- we were unaware of the discussion on a ferries template when our project started.  We probably should combine discussion on Template talk:Infobox Commercial Ship and this one in one place-- where does not matter.  Kablammo 17:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial vessel template 

message: After searching the archives, I didn't see what I was looking for.  I may have missed it.  Here is the example.  USS Serene (AM-300) and RVNS Nhut Tao (HQ-10) are the same ship. 
Now it make no sense to look at the Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships and see the USS Serene listed, it does make sense to see the RVNS Nhut Tao (HQ-10)   Having two seperate articles don't make a lot of sense.  My solution is on the redirect for which ever would be the smaller article put the category for that respective Navy's entry. Opinions? --71Demon 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do that, there's no link from the article from the category, which is half of the purpose of categorization.  We just put USS Serene in Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships instead. TomTheHand 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Category makes more sense if you see the Vietnamese names of the ships, than the US names. I understand about what your saying, and there is no good solution to that.  It would be nice if we could  do something like [Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships|USS Serene (AM-300)|RVNS Nhut Tao (HQ-10)] that way in that catergory it would display the later.  I believe that the names appearing are the category reflect the ships name in that category is more important than and easy hop. --71Demon 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be better for the Vietnamese name to appear in the Vietnamese category, and it would be nice if categorization supported it.  However, it's not a matter of just not having an easy hop: if we make a redirect, and categorize the redirect, there will be no link from the article to the category, which is literally 50% of the purpose of categorization.  You don't just need to be able to get from a category to an article.  You also need to be able to get from an article up to a category to find similar articles.  Categorizing redirects makes that impossible.  This has been discussed many times in the past, and we've concluded that it's necessary to categorize the articles themselves and not the redirects in spite of the disadvantages. TomTheHand 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree that is the problem, the way I got around it is to put a link under the ships new name in the article.  This allows the person to jump to the redirect, and get the category link. I would say that ships are one of the few things on Wiki, that present this problem. The should be a way to link to a category, without.... brb --71Demon 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not pretty, but problem solved. Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships --71Demon 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much prefer to just categorize the ship articles under Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships.  The solution you've described doesn't work: the person cannot jump to the redirect by clicking on the link in the article.  Instead you've put a link to the category at the bottom of the page, which I think is ugly and isn't the way people expect to find category links.  I think that it is better to accept having USS ships in the Republic of Vietnam Navy category than to try to do what you've done.  Do any other project members have an opinion? TomTheHand 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution I described works perfectly.  I don't like the way Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships looks, but it works.  It allows the ships to appear in their respective category under the correct name, and gives a direct link back to that category after the redirect.  It also appears that several others have been done in a similar way (looking at the category of the Tiawanese Navy) although they do not have the hard link. --71Demon 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you don't like the way Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships looks, and I know you think your solution is fine.  I think it's ugly and unintuitive, and I don't think there's a huge problem with having USS ships under Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships if it allows proper category navigation.  We need to hear from other project members. TomTheHand 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If your looking in Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy Ships and find USS Serene, there is no way to know it is the RVNS Nhut Tao (HQ-10).  I don't believe it does allow proper navigation.  --71Demon 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom thanks :Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships works great, much better.  --71Demon 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects & Categories 

message: OrphanBot is ignoring {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} tags.  I have put that tag on photos I have personally gotten from the National Archieves, that were taken by the USN.  The bot needs to be fixed, but the editor that programmed it stated, that {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} is not enough. Then what is the point of the {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}?  --71Demon 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the tag, you've got to say where you found the picture.  For example, if it's from the Naval Historical Center's web site, you need to provide a link to where it came from.  If you went to the NHC and scanned the picture yourself, you've got to say that. TomTheHand 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? That is what the {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} is for. If you put on the photo, I got it from the National Archives, then it is pointless to up {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}, because you already told them where it came from.  It is like chasing your tail.  It is basically saying, You told us it was a work of the USN, but we need you to tell us it is a work of the USN again --71Demon 15:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is a use rationale: "It's by the USN, and therefore public domain."  You also need to provide a source: "I got it from their web site, http://navalhistoricalwhatnot.mil/pictures.html" TomTheHand 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that only covers website sources and there is no way to varify anything else anybody puts.   If you put, "These were USN photos found at the Library in Mobile, Alabama" How do you varify that? Your trusting editors to put {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}, that should be enough.  IF they are going to lie, then they are going to lie not matter what you ask them to put. --71Demon 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to do for you beyond explaining what Wikipedia's policy is on this sort of thing.  If you tell me where you got the photos, I can try to tell you what needs to be put on them to conform to Wikipedia's policy. TomTheHand 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the policy, I don't agree with it. {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} should be sufficent.  I think it waste editors time, if they had not created a Bot, they would not do it themselves because then they would be wasting their time as well. --71Demon 17:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrphanBot 

message: Hi.  I'm not a member of this WikiProject, though of a few others and so have my hands full.  So I'm posting this in the hope that someone more experienced with ship-articles and their expected/standard formats and various categories and stubs can please have a look at the article/stub I just made on the SS Abyssinia, which was the Canadian Pacific Steamships vessel that halved the Trans-Pacific shipping time from Yokohama to New York, via the port of Vancouver, the Canadian Pacific Railway and Montreal.  I'll be creating various other ship articles to do with Vancouver's and BC's history in the next while (lots of them, mostly stubs to start; we have a large coastal/int'l shipping history, as well as a large number of inland steamer/ferry services, current as well as historical), so general guidelines as to content, layout and appropriate stubs/cats appreciated in general.  Also, I've noticed that Canadian Pacific Steamships doesn't have its own article, and perhaps it should; Canadian Pacific currently redirects only to the Canadian Pacific Railway but even by the end of the 19th Century CP was a megacorporation with a number of subordinate companies, e.g. Cominco (the Columbia Mining and Smelter Co.), as well as CP Shipping (as CP Steamships was, I think, known later on).Skookum1 05:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the commercial ships infobox to it and filled in what information I could, also using this site: .  There are some contradictions between that site and the article, though, so I didn't try to fill in things like capacity. TomTheHand 14:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have two read links Canadian Pacific steamships and CP steamship.  I am assuming that CP stands for Canadian Pacific.  If so seems when the article is written this should be one. If so, then I think CP steamship should be the format.  I wanted to make sure that was your intent, before I made a change, or you can do it yourself it.  --71Demon 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the opposite should be the format; we expand abbreviations.  In the time period of the article, the company was Canadian Pacific Steamships. TomTheHand 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should have clicked on it. CP steamship It was expanded. --71Demon 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  It doesn't matter that it linked to an expanded name; the expanded name should be used in the article. TomTheHand 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The expanded name is used in the article above.  It is accepted practice in writting that once you define the name Canadian Pacific, that using CP after that is ok. It is less ackward for the reader. --71Demon 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only the first use should be wikilinked, and the first use should be Canadian Pacific Steamships. TomTheHand 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with CP being wiki linked the first time (and only) in this article.    It confirms we are talking about the Canadian Pacific.  I agree with you on not wiki linking a 2nd CP, if one existed --71Demon 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It turns out we do have an article on Canadian Pacific Steamships under its modern name, CP Ships. TomTheHand 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[SS Abyssinia]]'' - new article, pls help

message: Hi.  I just created this as part of an onslaught of at-least-stubs on marine history and ships in the history of BC and the Pacific Northwest; it was titled this way because BC didn't exist as name until 1858, and HM ships show up as far back as Drake...not sure if the Golden Hind should be included, as I'm not sure there was an RN back then; if it was a military-commissioned ship I'd say it qualifies (as in an inline comment on the page).  The HMS Racoon is connected with the Fort George (Fort Astoria) incident during the War of 1812, and there are others who figure less in BC history than in Oregon's/Washington's, or perhaps Alaska's, so "Pacific Northwest" was used in the title instead of "British Columbia", which was too exclusive of other variables (notably the Colony of Vancouver Island, which predated the Colony of British Columbia and also is where the RN base was.  As for the rest, I pulled them from the British Columbia Chronicle by husband-and-wife historians Helen B. and G.P.V. Akrigg, which is a standard opus on pre-Confederation BC history.  On the list I'm meaning to add the names of their commanding officers but that's going to take some hunt-and-peck with the index vs. particular pages; some of these vessels were extremely significant in local history (the Tribune, the Plumper, for starters).  Anyway once again could someone please look over the categories and stubs and add or change any needed as appropriate.  A further article on the naval shipyard and another on the naval hospital at the RN base at Esquimalt (before it became CFB Esquimalt) will also be written; likewise the coaling stations at Fort Rupert and Nanaimo, although in both those cases the RN information will fit in the articles of the same name.  A similar list of Spanish ships in regional history, and maybe Russian ones, is intended.  A US one would be exhaustively long because of the military complex around Puget Sound, unless there were a cut-off date, e.g. 1940, pre-World War II.....Skookum1 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I've dab'd some vessels which had bluelinks, but not all, to distinguish them from later or earlier vessels.  Anyone who'd care to continue this process please do so.Skookum1 09:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest]]

message: First draft, working from source; pls revise as necessary for WikiProject ships article parameters; more to come on other naval disasters in the Pacific Northwest Coast aka Graveyard of the Pacific (which hmmm should have the ships project template, as it's entirely about ships sinking in that region...).Skookum1 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another new article - ''[[SS Pacific]]''

message: Just wanted to make everyone aware of a new Wiki feature, which you can read all about here.  It's the  magic word.  It lets you specify one default sort term to apply to all of an article's categories.  I wrote about it on our categorization subpage, and you can also read about it here.  Check out this diff to see where  converted an article to use it. TomTheHand 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFAULTSORT 

message: It seems like there should be disambiguation page for Constitution seeing as we have , , and SS Constitution.  However the usual name for the naval dab page is taken and I don't think anyone seriously wants to move  to USS Constitution (1797) to give equal time to an unnotable hull cancled when 13.4% complete.  So how about Ships named Constitution?  Although I suppose List of ships named Constitution is more wiki canon.  What say ye WikiProject Ships? --J Clear 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the 'pedia standard in these cases is "USS Constitution (disambiguation)" or perhaps "Constitution ship (disambiguation)". Compare Denmark (disambiguation). Jinian 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "USS Constitution (disambiguation)" would be just two entries, so I wanted to include the SS Constitution to make it three and avoid going back to three dablinks at the top of .  Much as "Constitution ship (disambiguation)" doesn't sing for me, it may be better than the list formats.  Or maybe I should just go for Constitution (disambiguation) and include the documents.  Seems like another cup of Kona coffee is called for to decide such weighty matters on a sleepy Sunday morning.--J Clear 14:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab for ''Constitution'' 

message: I'm going to start List of ships in British Columbia as a companion-piece to List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest but am wondering about the suitability of the title; would List of ships in the history of British Columbia be more appropriate?  Open to suggestions; I can always make the original a redirect if there's a more appropriate/correct title format.  NB I'm using British Columbia in this case, despite the Pacific Northwest usage in the Royal Navy one.Skookum1 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I went ahead and made it; if someone doesn't like the title pls let me know and we'll work on it.  I was uncertain with Spanish and Russian vessels as to whether or not to use "SS" so left that off the entries in question; also in some cases I'm pretty sure the British/Canadian vessels may be "MV" instead of "SS" but I didn't mine the texts of the sources, only the indexes, and the distinction may not be present in the texts anyway; but please have a look at the "edit" version of the page for the dabs I've used on SS Massachusetts and SS Enterprise; might be the "(Northwest Coast)" isn't needed; I didn't examine those disambiguation pages to see if the vessels in question might already be listed/titled.Skookum1 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title format for new list?

message: The UK naval ships stub type has become very large;  I've made a proposal here to create a number of more specific stub types to help bleed off some of them...  Please comment there if you have any thoughts.  Alai 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK naval ship stub types 

message: I'd like a second opinion on new information being added by a user citing themselves as a source. See  and most recent edits to . Thanks. --Dual Freq 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be legitimate, but it sounds a little like sour grapes to me and I'm not sure if it needs including in quite so much detail. Martocticvs 23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True maybe, though not reliably sourced, is it encyclopedic? --Dual Freq 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the claims being made there, I think it absolutely needs to be sourced. Martocticvs 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to drag other editors into it. --Dual Freq 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Worden (CG-18)]] 

message: Hi, Can I ask for some expert help. At Wikiproject Bristol we are trying to ensure that all the articles for the city have infoboxes (and pictures etc) & I've tried using the ships infobox on SS Great Britain, Matthew (ship) and Pyronaut which are all permanently in Bristol Harbour. I've read through all of the discussion above, about its use, but I can't make any sense of this infobox & a lot of it only seems to apply if the ship was military. Any help or advice appreciated.— Rod talk 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to help.  We have a new ship infobox that we're trying to use, and I think it will be very useful in this case.  First off, check out Template:Infobox Ship Example.  Click on the "Show" button for the code for a civilian ship, and you'll see what you need to copy and paste into an article.  Paste it at the top and fill in all the fields you can. TomTheHand 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I originally planned to put an infobox on one ship as an example, but I need to do some thinking about how I want to do it, as these ships don't have much of the information I usually try to fill in.  If I've given you enough information to proceed, please do so, but I'll still try to put an infobox on one of them. TomTheHand 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks thats great. I've had a go at SS Great Britain & Pyronaut but there seems to be lots of gaps eg what should go in "status" for a ship which is now a museum piece & was never military? Is the capton supposed to be to the left of the image rather than below it? where should height above the deck be recorded? what should be put in complement when the ship has had so many different uses? Is gross tonnage the same as displacement? Any further help appreciated.— Rod talk 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For "status", I would say "Museum ship in Bristol Harbor" or something of that kind.  For the image, replace "thumb" with "300px" and the caption will go below the image.  Infobox Ship doesn't actually have any place to put height above deck, and it's something that's not specified too often, so it might be strange to add it.  Not sure what to tell you there.  Complement would generally be the crew and wouldn't include passengers; not sure if that'd help you.  You could also specify the conditions that the complement applies to, like "70 sailors (as launched)" or "110 sailors (in 1878)".  Gross tonnage is not the same as displacement; gross tonnage is a measure of volume while displacement is a measure of weight.  Infobox Ship doesn't support tonnage, only displacement, so if you want to list tonnage you'll need to use the infobox I suggested above. TomTheHand 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help using infobox Ship 

message: The insert image here symbol has been questioned as breaking the 4th wall and lacking professionalism by telling / ordering people to insert an image on . I noticed www.imdb.com uses "no photo available" rather than insert image here so I uploaded a different version, which is also narrower vertically. Possibly something more artistic could be done, but I like a thinner version and despite being called IIH.png I like the wording better. I like having the placeholder image because it allows me to find articles without images. It's allowed me to add numerous images to ship articles using the File links section on the image page. Any comments? Perhaps I should have asked first, but reverting is fairly easy as has been done with other versions of the image. --Dual Freq 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great idea.  First, I think shrinking the image is a really good step.  Second, I think "no photo available" really addresses the issues people have mentioned in reference to the IIH tag.  Currently, Template:Infobox Ship Image does not use the IIH image when no image is specified because of the fourth wall issues, but I'll happily insert this new image later today when I get a chance.  I do think an svg version would be a good idea, but I've got no idea how to make one. TomTheHand 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the svg version to Infobox Ship, as well as Infobox Ship Image, which is the image portion of the subtemplated infobox. TomTheHand 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, no, looks like I messed it up.  It's not working right now.  I'll get it fixed. TomTheHand 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok.  It looks like the "No Photo Available" pic appears when no "Ship image=" line is present, but if one is present and empty, the pic won't display.  If anyone can fix it on either  or  I'd be grateful. TomTheHand 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insert image here 

message: Yesterday I made some revisions to our project main page, somewhat based on ideas I got looking at WP:MILHIST.  I tried to reorganize things, grouping similar topics together.  I moved some long stuff to subpages.  I also removed some stuff and added some things of my own.  I think it's much cleaner now, but it's not very pretty.  Looking at all that plain text makes my eyes glaze over.  Anyone have any suggestions?
I also really dig the navigation box that MILHIST uses.  See Template:WPMILHIST Navigation.  I think I'd like to work up something similar for us.
I think it'd be really cool if we could get a project to-do list going.  Maybe we could do it as a template, so if people wanted to they could transclude it onto their user pages.  We could all add to it, so that people who might want to join can see the types of things we do.  We could also help each other out with our projects.
I'd also like to make a push for putting Template:WikiProject Ships on the talk pages of all of the articles we touch.  It'd get some fresh blood into the project. TomTheHand 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What can I say?  Great effort TomTheHand.  I wish I had some suggestions but I'm having enough problems beautifying a wiki of my own atm.  Next time I consult a ship article (very frequent) I'll stick in the template if it needs one.  --Harlsbottom 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision to main page 

message: The Battleship article is up for a G/A-Class review. Any input is welcomed as always! --MoRsE 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G/A-Class review for [[Battleship]] 

message: In the new ship infobox, it's possible to add custom fields using standard Wiki table syntax.  I wouldn't really encourage doing this, because I think for the most part infoboxes should be standard, but I've written up some information about how to do it here. TomTheHand 21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom fields in new ship infobox 

message: There are quite obviously a number of users gifted in the way of the template keeping an eye on this project, I wonder if any would be so good as to quickly browse Template:British Shipbuilders evolution and help me with 2 problems;
# How can I remove the white background around the blue area, so that it forms a homogeneous block.
# How can I get the template to add every page it is linked from to the category :Category:British Shipbuilders Corporation - what I thought would do this doesn't.
Many thanks in advance, Emoscopes Talk 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reference to the second issue, it's possible that it needs to propogate through the ether and we should just give it time.  I'll look at the first, though if a true template expect sees this request for help, please check it out.  I have no idea where to start. TomTheHand 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that what you had in mind? I don't think there's a way to remove the cell spacing from just the blue cells. TomTheHand 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no, it was really to make the blue area homogeneous, for visual appeal really. I think a blanket removal of borders affects the clarity between years and companies too much, no? Emoscopes Talk 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S, I hope you aren't offended that I reverted it back, I think it just loses too much clarity. Emoscopes Talk 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, no, not offended.  I agree with you that removing the spacing completely sacrifices clarity.  A real template expert might know how to just combine the blue fields, but it's beyond me. TomTheHand 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template help

message: I have been working rather painstakingly on developing and improving the template Template:British Shipbuilders evolution, but appear to have incurred the wrath of a busybody who has listed it as "listcruft" at templates for deletion. I would appreciate any editors comments (positive or otherwise, if I am being too protective of my "baby" perhaps its about time I saw the light). I just feel rather mystified about it. In my more than humble opinion, as I express at Tfd, the template is clearly notable and far from just a list, and the individual proposing deletion has no other edit on WP - I can't help but let my suspicious mind think "sockpuppet". Emoscopes Talk 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in my two cents.  I think it's an excellent template.  Sockpuppetry seems obvious here; have any ideas as to who the puppetmaster may be? TomTheHand 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really have NO idea, I don't think I've ever offended anyone on WP, and certainly never have intended to. I really should assume good faith, I just find it all too suspicious when what would appear to be a brand new user is so in tune with the inner workings and lingo of WP. Emoscopes Talk 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why someone would have it in for something as offensive and controversial as a timeline of modern British shipbuilding just boggles the mind!! Many thanks for your support anyway :) Emoscopes Talk 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assume good faith about the nomination, but I can't believe that it's actually a new user. TomTheHand 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read up WP:SOCK, but I don't think there's much that can be done until the puppetmaster (if there is one) rears its ugly head. As it is, its a minor annoyance rather than blatant vandalism or personal attack and I'm happy to let it lie, but I shall keep one eye half open to it and see if anything else develops. Emoscopes Talk 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tfd assistance required

message: The infobox template, Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics, is used to describe the general physical characteristics of the ships in a particular class.  Since it contains (mostly) the same data for each ship in the class, only one copy of the data need be maintained and can be used in all the articles for ships of that class.
This is quite easily accomplished.  The usual scheme is something like
  
By creating an article/file, say, "Gilliam attack transport characteristics" that looks like
    
any articles referencing the data would look like
  
As an example, User:Saintrain/S2/GCAT Characteristics is an article/file that "calls" Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics with all the pertinent data for a Gilliam class attack transport.  This file is transcluded into both Gilliam class attack transport (an article describing the ships in the class) and USS Barrow (APA-61) (an article on a ship of the class).
:This looks great.  In the past we've occasionally used templates to populate certain fields.  For example, every ship of a class might use  to populate their armament fields.  That had its advantages, but it had a lot of problems as well.  This is an awesome solution, as it cleans up ship articles considerably while also putting the characteristics in one place instead of scattered across ten tiny templates.
:I have one suggestion.  When we use this, perhaps we could make an effort to include comment telling editors how to modify the characteristics.  For example:

:That comment won't be visible in the article, but it will be seen by editors, and it will provide some guidance to editors who aren't familiar with templates and transclusion. TomTheHand 17:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintaining centralized  "Infobox Ship Characteristics" template databases 

message: I see we had some bold editing of the  banner.  Editors should note the new class (rating) and importance parameters.  If an article had been rated/reviewed "class" will need to be set as rated.  The dual images that symbolize the dual scope of the project: naval and civilian ships, as well as old and new, were added back.  --J Clear 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we'll need to put together a couple of pages regarding the assessment process then, as links are provided to currently non-existent pages on the revised template...Martocticvs 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner changes 

message: In a table listing ships under constructions, with dates of laying down / launching etc., would it be correct to say "commissioning" or "commissioned" if none of ships are due to commission for another 2 years at the earliest? Does one go with the correct use of language (i.e. future tense) or some sort of undefined convention that ships can only be "commissioned"? Emoscopes Talk 10:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USN has (had?) something called a "pre commissioning unit", which I believe consisted of the nucleus of the future crew.  Not sure of the particulars, but at least it's a term.  Hmm, I think perhaps "fitting out" might fit.  I'm not sure the concept of commissioning enters into it until the builder is "finished" and "delivers" the ship to the navy.  Not sure if that helped any, I seem to be rambling.  --J Clear 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future ship commissionings 

message: I think this must be the right place to ask this question: Was this photo taken on a US Navy ship? (the Stars and Stripes and the uniforms suggest it's American ...) The Japanese man shown, Lt-Col Tatsuji Suga attended a surrender ceremony in Borneo on 11 Sept 1945 on HMAS Kapunda, but the US Navy were also involved - was this photo possibly taken on a US Navy launch/small ship used to take Suga to and/or from Kuching to the Kapunda? I don't know anything about naval architecture but it looks like a ship to me. Also - it appears to say 'Peacock': would that be the name of the ship or weren't the smaller vessel named? Thanks. Jasper33 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by that radar dome, that is a US-made PT boat of some description. Emoscopes Talk 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The USN and RN didn't name minor vessels like this officially, but it is likely this might be some unofficial embellishment added by the crew. Emoscopes Talk 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Emoscopes. Jasper33 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Navy WWII ship?

message: Is it ok if I go ahead and put the wikiproject box on the talk pages for the cruise ship articles? Splamo 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea.  Though I think most of our members have a warship focus, we're definitely supposed to be covering all ships.  Our coverage of civilian ships is what distinguishes us from the Military History WikiProject's Maritime Warfare Task Force (well, that, and WikiProject Ships is a way more manageable name!). TomTheHand 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I'll start working on it. Should I just use the standard 'Wikiproject Ships' box or anything special? Splamo 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the regular one.  It shows a warship on the left and an ocean liner on the right, which is intended to show that the project covers all ships. TomTheHand 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruise Ships

message: Will the Template:Infobox Class be changed to MILHIST style as well? It will look much better if all the infoboxes regardings ships (both specific ships and classes) have the same design in my opinion. Keallu 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an assumption that WP:Ships is a complete subset of WP:MILHIST, which it isn't?  It may look that way at times, but its charter includes commercial and private ships as well as naval.  You could make the case that Ships belong under Transport (is there such a project?) first.  And in many cases the class article will have less or no "military history" content. That said, I'm not adverse to style improvements.  --J Clear 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, but it has no style ... er, that didn't come out quite right ... yet.  And Transport does claim Ships as a child project.  And while I may personally like MILHIST's color scheme, the only time I ever "sailed" on anything that color was when the "ship" was made by Boeing. --J Clear 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that we're not a subset of MILHIST, but we have significant overlap and so I think using their infobox style (see USS Bang (SS-385)) is not a bad thing.  There's nothing military-looking about the style, so I don't see any problem with it being used on civilian ships as well. TomTheHand 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The intention is definately not to see or make WP:Ships a subset of WP:MILHIST. I see you as a fellow project on equal terms and have the outmost respect for your work, also in the WP:MILHIST-uncovered areas like civilian ships etc. I myself provide mostly details about U-boats and surrounding subjects which crosses both projects and so it is just nice to have the same look and feel for both projects and since the regular ship infobox was changed to MILHIST style, it would just look a bit more streamlined to change the class as well in my opinion. Keallu 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above we were discussing actually using a variant on the multi-template ship infobox to cover classes as well.  Saintrain, if you're around, how's that going? TomTheHand 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Any update on this? Keallu 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox styles 

message: The article Battleship has been promoted to Featured Article status! --MoRsE 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battleship is now a Featured Article 

message: I just added an optional parameter to .  It gives the editor control over which pieces are displayed in the linking article.  It will let the editor supress displaying the "USS" or hull number in the linking article text, while retaining a non-redirected link to the linked article.  It's backward compatible so omitting the 3rd parameter will do the same as before and display everything.  The updated usage is on Template talk:USS, including the reason to use it if you haven't before.  Comments, criticism and fixes welcome. --J Clear 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that looks like quite a useful template - any objections to copying and adapting for HMS usage? Martocticvs 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely none.  If I did, I wouldn't be working with the GFDL.  I was actually thinking  would be useful to do so when I made  months ago, but never had a need.  Should be very straightforward, if you've got no template experience, give me a yell and I'll set it up, but you'd need to edit the examples to suit.  Hmm, wonder if we could make some sort of meta-template.--J Clear 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't done much with templates before, but it seemed like a simple case of switching any example of USS out for HMS and that has done the trick nicely. Martocticvs 22:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I forgot one of the more useful permutations, "6".   and Template talk:USS have been updated.  I'm not that happy with the examples tables, but the pre formatted was too flaky (kept wrapping the line), so I went that way.  Anyway you ought to update  already.--J Clear 23:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the Template_talk:HMS page match up - I noticed you already added the extra function to the template so I think that's it sorted for now. Martocticvs 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just changed the error messages in  to say "Pendant Number Missing" rather than Hull Number.  I think we're good to go.--J Clear 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates USS and HMS  

message: Some anons have added that the Iranian frigate Sahand, which was heavily damaged and sunk during Operation Praying Mantis, was raised and now one has cited Janes fighting ships 2006-2007. If anyone has access to a copy I'd like to get verification from an established editor (and a page number, ISBN, etc) to further confirm this. Further status beyond just "raised" would be nice as well. Was it raised to scrap, or because it presented a navigational hazard, etc. Thanks. --Dual Freq 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: may be the source of the claim. Grain of salt, I think. Shimgray | talk | 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sack of salt, imo. I've added some stronger tags to the article and started a discussion. Emoscopes Talk 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   A more civil discussion here.  Iranian frigate Mowj?  Claimed Janes ref, anyone have Janes to confirm?  --J Clear 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian frigate Sahand 

message: We have a number of images from navyphotos.co.uk.  Unfortunately the terms under which those images are licensed are no longer allowed here on Wikipedia.  These images will eventually be deleted unless they are actually free licensed (some of the photos are probably public domain).  They will be nominated for deletion soon, so if anyone is able to confirm that any of these images are, in fact, public domain, and can note a source, please change their copyright tags!
See this discussion for a little more info. TomTheHand 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note there listing the most obviously deleteable ones (about 50%) - the rest may be worth hanging fire on. Shimgray | talk | 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of images from www.navyphotos.co.uk 

message: I'm cross-posting this note from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force --Dual Freq 02:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Famous class cutters came up in Categories for discussion on 25 April 2007. The problem, obviously, is that people look at this and think, "famous truants?" I think I've managed to convince them of the ship category conventions, but it would be good to try for something a little clearer, such as :Category:Famous class USCG cutters or something like that. Please discuss and visit the CfD. Mangoe 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help with categorization of USCG cutters 

message: After many months of feeling our project page was too cumbersome, I finally amassed enough round tuits and boldly did something about it (as you may have noticed).  I'm much happier, but I freely admit the main page and new sub pages need a polishing.  All the material should still be ... somewhere, just most of the detail was pushed down to sub pages.
There are two further structural things I'd like to have happen.  
# a TOC like structure at the top to directly link to the sub pages (wouldn't be surprised if there is a template to do that).  
# get the text to flow around that scorecard.  (I'll take a stab at this later.)done--J Clear 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your hard work motivated me to get out there and start adding our project tag to relevant articles.  Are there any plans for updating the Statistics section with less-bogus data?  :-)  I admit to being quite curious as to what our numbers look like (and just how big our assessment hole is).  --Kralizec! (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current statistics box is up to date, which should measure the "hole".  I just didn't convert all the historical data, because it seemed all the percentages were hand calculated on the page.  Someday... as that would be good for measuring "progress".--J Clear 12:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Page Surgery 

message: As part of the Project Page Surgery, I reworte the Project's Scope.  I put this comment here as a place for debate, kudos and brickbats.--J Clear 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Scope Discussion 

message: Observant editors may have noticed that our project banner had redlinks in it for "rated".  This was a link to our previously non-existant assessment "department".  I took it upon myself to plagerize WP:MILHIST heavily and imported their assessment department. I also brought over their Review department to make our Review page.  If you have any interest at all in reviewing other Ships editors work or seeing what is being reviewed, please add it to your watch list now.  
Also, if there are any bored template hackers out there,  has hooks into their review process that could be imported into .  The instruction for using those are still in "our" instructions on the Review page, but commented out.  Actually there is room for additional automation in the process. --J Clear 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SHIPS /Assessment and /Review Created 

message: The article USS Phelps (DD-360) has a manually made infobox. Can someone convert this to use the infobox Template:Infobox Ship I'm inexperienced with infoboxes so I am requesting that someone help out. Thank you.  Sodaplayer  talk contrib ^_^ 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for infobox conversion 

message: FYI   is compatible with .  So, if you're adding our project banner to an article claimed by two or more other projects, try the Shell (see the template doc for our banner or the Shell).  This happens a fair bit as we have a large overlap with WP:MILHIST and often with the shipwrecks project and some US state project.  In at least one case 5 projects claim one ship article.  The general rule of thumb says don't bother with the Shell if there are only one or two projects, though.
If you encounter another project that doesn't have the "nested" parameter implemented, it's fairly easy to add if the other project banner is a table already (most are).  You only need the the first few lines (up to the  image link) out of our banner (be sure to change the project link).  If you don't want to edit another project's banner, leave a request on the Shell's talk page.
--J Clear 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually use  similar to the way it is used on Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine). Is one better than another? WikiProjectBanners doesn't appear to need a nested= parameter, but I don't know about compatibility. I don't think I've had any problems with it in the past. --Dual Freq 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer  because it can show just the banner of the project you are working on, rather than 's "all or nothing" approach.  Yesterday I tagged quite a few of the World War I-era ships of the Kaiserliche Marine for our project, and while I was at it, I went ahead and added other project banners as appropriate (mostly , , and/or ).  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:   is an all or nothing.  You either see no list of projects, or you see all the details.  You can see an example of  at Talk:USS Constitution.  With the Shell, each project is displayed as one line with the associated rating.  On the other hand  is useful if some of the projects don't support "nested", although lately I've just been updating those project's banners for them (occasionally trying to divert them to Ships...). --J Clear 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with Multiple Project Banners 

message: As per my comments on Talk:County class cruiser, I don't really see the purpose of the infobox in this article. Do we *really* need one in every article, when all it achieves is over-simplistic innacuracies? I really feel it detracts from the quality of an article I have worked very hard to improve; to me it is the equivalent of scribbling over it with crayons! Your thoughts, gentlemen? Emoscopes Talk 22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree with you that the current infobox harms the article with its generalizations and inaccuracies.  However, I want to eventually start using an infobox for classes based on the multi-template infobox I'm currently using for ships.  That would allow General Characteristics (Kent), General Characteristics (London), etc.  While I prefer what you've done (separate specifications, down in a specs section) to the current infobox, I think the best solution is to eventually provide a better infobox. TomTheHand 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To infobox, or not to infobox

message: A few months ago, we tried to discuss battleships vs. ships of the line, from a categorization perspective, and tried to figure out what ships should go into battleship categories and what ships should go into ship of the line categories.  We had trouble really nailing anything down, and I'd like to bring it up again.  What should the dividing line be? TomTheHand 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the term battleship is descended from line of battle ship / ship of the line of battle... deciding where one should end and the other start is quite a difficult task. In a way it is correct to say a ship of the line is a battleship, but then again that would be applying the modern label to it. Personally, I would say a battleship would have a metal hull, and wooden hulled ships would be ships of the line... I do think it is slightly misleading to term a ship that was always under sail, never received engines, had a wooden hull and always mounted canon along her broadsides a battleship - its not what people think of as a battleship as such. Martocticvs 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we do it by "iron hull" then how do we classify the iron-armored but wooden-hulled La Gloire?  I would hesitate to classify her as a ship of the line, with her single gun deck and small number of very heavy guns.  To me, her disposition of armament makes her a frigate, but I would have no problem calling her a battleship.  I would be more comfortable placing the dividing line at metal armor. TomTheHand 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My tuppenny bit as requested.  The term 'ship of the line' could be equally applied to ships of the dreadnought class, etc into the twentieth century as well, as they tended to deploy in line formation.  I think the term is popularly held to mean ships with their guns ranged along their sides, that would fire mass broadsides, 'lining up' parallel with each other  I would say that the use of armour wasn't really a revolutionary change to the way these ships fought, rather their durability.  I'd suggest that the term battleship might be applied to ships that didn't carry their main armament in their hulls, but on turrets, as being a major change to the way these ships fought.  I suppose that would make HMS Prince Albert (1864) the first British battleship on these terms. To conclude, I'd say the change was when ships no longer needed to line up in parallel lines, but could use turrets, etc to alter their firing.  Anyway, feel free to tear that appart ad nauseum, just my opinion really.  ttfn.  Benea 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be terribly opposed to making turreted armament the defining criteria, but I do think that "oceangoing" should be an additional requirement.  By that criteria, I obviously don't think that Monitor and similar vessels should be considered battleships.  Prince Albert's article describes her as a "shallow-draught coast-defence ship," which implies that she is not oceangoing, but it does say she had 7 feet of freeboard, which makes her considerably more seaworthy than Monitor.  With that said, 1. Would "oceangoing" be an acceptable addition to the criteria, and 2. Was HMS Prince Albert oceangoing? TomTheHand 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, another thought from a few minutes later.  We could potentially have an overlap, where, for example, all armored oceangoing vessels carry battleship categories, and all line-of-battle broadside-armed oceangoing vessels carry ship of the line cats.  Categories exist to help people find articles, and so we might be best off double-categorizing disputable vessels like HMS Warrior so that more people could find her article.  TomTheHand 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with pretty much all of that.  Oceangoing is fair enough, I also wouldn't call Monitor a battleship.  Not sure about Prince Albert, it's not very famous so you'd probably have to go to the listed sources.  I imagine she was capable of oceangoing, but probably never left coastal waters.  Double catagorising also sounds sensible.  Benea 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it's difficult, especially as the Royal Navy thought of Warrior as an "armoured frigate"! Emoscopes Talk 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that in principle, I think... The transition between the age of sail and the modern era is pretty muddled and there is obviously no clear dividing line, so double categorising is probably the best way to go. Martocticvs 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So by the above criteria,  and her kin would fall into both.  I'm applying a liberal definition of armor, but you've got to admit they have tougher hulls than most surface vessels.  And her primary weapons all point to one side, topside.  Or are we going to quibble about them being boats, not ships. ;-) --J Clear 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battleships vs. ships of the line 

message: Please pop by CFD to weigh in on the deletion of the newly created United States Navy heavy cruisers. TomTheHand 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD 

message: Hi all - while writing up the Avro Type D, I've come across a reference that an example was used for seaplane trials from "airship tender Hermione" in late 1911. I've tentatively identified this with the cruiser of that name, but does anyone here know for sure that they were one-and-the-same? --Rlandmann 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out this site, which says that "in September 1910, she became a sea-going depot ship for the first Naval airship of the lighter-than-air type at Barrow, but when the building of this craft was abandoned, HMS Hermione rejoined the 4th division of the Home Fleet in January 1912."  Sounds like that's the Hermione you're looking for! TomTheHand 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the speedy reply! --Rlandmann 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HMS Hermione (1893)

message: Ok, so this has come up a few times before but nothing's come out of it.  As you guys know, I put together a new ship infobox that can be used on ships that have served in multiple navies, have had multiple periods in commission, have changed greatly during a refit, etc.  It works by dividing the different sections of the infobox into different templates, so that each section can be repeated by just repeating that template.  Typically, a ship will use the Header, Image, Career, and Characteristics templates.
We had discussed making another small template that would work for ship class infoboxes.  Then, you'd use the existing Header and Image templates, the new hypothetical Class template, and the existing Characteristics template.  The Characteristics template could be repeated, for example, to support subclasses.
I'd like to go ahead and create this small Class template now, since it's holding me back.  I'd like to get input on what features it should support.  Right now we have two class templates in use: Template:Infobox Class and Template:Infobox Ship Class.  They each have things I like and dislike:
*Infobox Ship Class is very simple, and it includes "Type", which I actually think is really important.  Your infobox should definitely mention that you're dealing with a battleship, or frigate, or whatever.
*Infobox Class has a lot of features.  I like some of them, but others I think go overboard.  I like its support for fields that indicate the range of service, but I think that having one set of fields for "First commissioned" and "Last decommissioned" and another set for "First in service" and "Last out of service" is redundant.  I like the idea behind its "Ships in class" section, but it's got way too many fields and I have no idea how they're intended to be used.  It has fields for total ships in class, ships active, building, fitting out, converted, stored, out of service, sunk, scrapped, preserved, unbuilt, and planned, in that order.  I'm unsure of whether I'm supposed to put numbers or names into each of those fields.
For the new ship class template, what I'd essentially like to do is this:
#Use Infobox Class as a base
#Add "Type" to the first section
#Remove "First commissioned" and "Last decommissioned" fields, and just have the "In service" and "Out of service" fields
#Overhaul the "Ships in class" section, to have: "Planned:" "Building:" "Active:", "In reserve:" "Sunk:" "Preserved:" "Scrapped:" and "Cancelled:"
I'm a little iffy on the placement of the "Cancelled" field, as I feel like chronologically it should go earlier, maybe before "Active", but perhaps logically it should be separate.  I feel like there should be a "total number of ships that actually entered service" field, but I don't know where to insert it and I don't know what to call it.  More fields could be added later if they're needed, but realistically fields can't be removed after the creation of the template, so I want to have the bare minimum.  It would be up to the judgement of the editor whether a list of ships or just a number would go into each field, depending on the size of the class.  How does this sound? TomTheHand 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm going to try to implement this when I get some free time. TomTheHand 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship class template 

message: I started categorizing ship articles just about a year ago.  At that time, I started organizing class articles according to a hierarchy:
*Type category (example: :Category:Destroyer classes)
**Class category (example: :Category:Fletcher class destroyers)
***Class article (example: Fletcher class destroyer)
There was some objection to this, right around here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive03#Ship_class_articles.  The compromise solution was to put :Category:Destroyer classes on both Fletcher class destroyer and :Category:Fletcher class destroyers.
The compromise makes it easier to navigate from the class article to other class articles.  I understand that, but it kind of makes a mess of :Category:Destroyer classes.  Only 200 articles+subcats can be shown on one page, so the cat is messily divided.
Could we revisit this?  We revisited the issue of putting (Ship) of (Country) cats on every ship article, and decided that in order to clean categories up, we should put (Ship) of (Country) on the class category and leave it off the articles where possible.  We decided that well-maintained list articles, like List of United States Navy destroyers, are a better way to have a complete list of ships.  We already have List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy.  It's short and to-the-point, but it seems to be complete; with a little work I think it would be a great replacement for double-categorizing the class articles. TomTheHand 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly change how we categorize class articles? 

message: RMS Titanic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMS Titanic FAR 

message: The article for HMS Ocean (1805) was apparently at least in part copied from the Royal Navy's web site, and since creation has carried the message "Parts of this page © Crown Copyright 2003, used with permission. "  I'm pretty sure this is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia today, even if it was ok in 2003.  The link is dead, so I can't verify how much of it is a copy.  Is anyone up for rewriting the article?  If not, I think I may need to speedy delete it as a blatant copyright infringement (I don't think it gets any more blatant than saying right on a page "This is copyrighted material."). TomTheHand 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut it down to a bare-bones stub, it would probably only end up being re-created at some point if you speedy it. Emoscopes Talk 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with cutting it down. I noticed that a while ago, thinking back, and the link was dead then, but I didn't have time to do anything with it at the time and then forgot all about it.Martocticvs 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I Googled the ship, found a web site with a tiny bit of info, and cut the article down to almost nothing, citing this site as a reference for the one sentence that remains.  Added a stub tag too. TomTheHand 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright issue with an article 

message: I've started tagging articles, you can see the logs here. At the beginning I've tried to only run it when I was at the PC just to make sure nothing went wrong. I do have a couple of questions.
#Should ship disambig pages like USS Cabot be tagged?
##Yes, although we may ask you to set a certain class/importance to all of them, perhaps later.  I believe they should all use , rather than some variation on .
#Should ship pages tagged by WikiProject Shipwrecks also be tagged by this project?
##Yes, since shipwrecks is a peer project.
#Should ship class pages like Yorktown class aircraft carrier be tagged
##Yes. There has been discussion recently on class/importance to initialize these too, as well.--J Clear 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think those lists would be in scope for the project, certainly the latter.  The debate would be on what class/importance to give them, which should occur in a different thread than this. ;-) --J Clear 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Please weigh in on the AFD for Battlecarrier, here.  I'm really bothered that this article presents a neologism as a real type of warship. TomTheHand 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CVB: Battle Carrier (PDF). Certainly not a combination battleship / carrier or anything else written in the Battlecarrier article. This doesn't even use the term to describe a CVB. Maybe it can be re-written? -Dual Freq 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think the "B" in "CVB" stands for "battle."  The "B" in CB, the Alaska class large cruisers, didn't.  I suspect they're related: CB is a large cruiser, CVB is a large aircraft carrier. TomTheHand 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battlecarrier]] AFD 

message: I'm tempted to remove the list of "Known sailors[sic]" from , but thought I'd see if anyone saw the value or if we have such a list elsewhere.--J Clear 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I see any significance in it, personally... such sections also have the potential to become stupidly long. If there was a person famous for some event who served aboard, then that's a different matter, but a list of people who served on a particular ship is probably best kept on a dedicated website or in the public records office... Martocticvs 16:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List(s) of sailors 

message: I just undid a set of edits to  that appeared to be based on confusion between the Ticonderoga sub class of the Essex class carrier and the later Aegis cruiser class.  I considered just cleaning up the edit (i.e. changing ESSEX -> Essex) until I realized that the edits had changed the length of the ship!  However there seems to be incosistency among the rest of the "Ticonderoga" articles.  Spot checking a few in DANFS finds them consistently listed as Essex class, so I think we probably should follow suit.  However we need to take care that we maintain the distinct specifications.  Even if we want to stick to calling them Ticonderogas, we should do so consistently.  If we go with Essex, we should clean up (delete) all the no longer needed Ticonderoga templates.  Unfortunately I don't have enough time today to start on it, so I'll leave it here.--J Clear 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticonderoga carriers 

message: An anon keeps copying and pasting a gigantic, rather POV, lengthy tale into the article for Arthur Leopold Busch, a naval architect who worked with John Philip Holland.  If possible, could a few folks watchlist this article and help to keep it sane?  Thanks! TomTheHand 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with POV issue 

message: I'm in the middle of adding and improving infoboxes on RN ship of the line articles, and I just came up to HMS Monmouth (1667). She was rebuilt 3 times over the course of her 100 year career - the changes in naval architecture over that period were significant enough to be able to say fairly reasonably that by the time she was broken up, not one single timber from the original build would have been part of her structure. I just want to know what you people think about this: should it stay as one article, or should it be split into separate ones for each build? Each rebuild would have been ordered as a normal build, though specified as a rebuild... so instead of starting from scratch, they would have dismantled the old ship, salvaged what they could, and then carry on as they would for any ship. I'm of two minds, myself. Martocticvs 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Puts me in mind of .  However in the case of Monmouth there's really not enough article to break up.--J Clear 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you've done is perfect.  If the article gets long, let's split it up, but as long as the article is shorter than the infobox it should stay combined.  This kind of article is the perfect use of the multiple "Characteristics" sections. TomTheHand 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree... I think I just thought it looked a bit odd because the infobox ended up about 5 times longer than the article, but what you say makes sense. Martocticvs 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships with multiple rebuilds 

message: If you are tired of typing out class names twice, like Haskell-class attack transport, then this is for you.  All that can be reduced to , that's it.   Inspired by  and ,  is the same thing for classes instead of ships.    And like USS and HMS, you can tweak the output, too! 
sclass is an editor's shortcut for creating properly formatted links to ship class articles that follow the standard naming format of Class name class ship type.   See the fine documentation for more details.  You can also see it in use at .
I hope you find this useful. --J Clear 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - that will come in useful I suspect! Martocticvs 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone else would like to nominate another linkage, where trying to properly italicized the ship/class name while linking to an article title w/o italics results in twice the work, for a template let me know (here).  For instance it should be absurdly easy to do HMAS from .  In fact I should probably look at a generic ship prefix template that they all could call.  It would keep the editors interface intuitive and short, but do the logic once.  --J Clear 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editing shortcut template - '''sclass''' 

message: Hi, I've done several sternwheeler articles for British Columbia sternwheelers such as BC Express (sternwheeler) and about 14 others and categorized them all simply as steamships. Should they be in the sub cat of paddle steamers instead?CindyBotalk 07:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were being pedantic, I'd point out they are river boats, not ships. ;-) However, in general if an article fits into a lower sub-category you use the more specific sub category only.  Apply the rule recursively, and fork the search each time two or more sub categories apply.  Say for instance one of your paddle wheelers had been used by the North in the Civil war.  If you started at ships, you'd think :Category:Ships by type, :Category:Ships by navy, and :Category:Naval ships would apply.  The first fork would yield :Category:Paddle steamers and the others both yield :Category:Civil War naval ships of the United States, among others (probably a USN class of vessel as well).  So add both those leaf categories to the article.  Make sense?  Generally, you don't include the less specific categories because an interested reader can always traverse the category tree toward parent categories.  --J Clear 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't notice any yesterday, but hunt around the :Category:Ships tree, there is a lot there.  If you think there are a significant number of articles to group together with a more specific category that doesn't exist yet, then go for it.  If you do create your own, go into that Cat page and add parent categories to link it in.  --J Clear 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing how we're a project determined to write an article on every single Destroyer escort (457), LSM (558), Victory ship (~2700), Liberty ship (2751), and tramp steamer (like rats...) that ever was, we're not going to complain.  ;-)  --J Clear 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steamships and paddle steamers categories

message: I had previously posted about Balao class submarines and all the difficulties involved in determining the details of their propulsion.  Since then, I've found numerous reliable sources giving the surface power of the Gato, Balao, and Tench class subs as 5,400 hp and the submerged power as 2,740 hp.  I'm reasonably inclined to rely on those figures.
shafts.  The diesels did not drive the boats directly.  That means that whether surfaced or submerged, the boats are being driven by the same motors, and so I don't know why surfaced power differs from submerged.  Theories:
#The batteries don't generate as much voltage as the generators can.
I have an issue with them, though. The U.S. fleet boats were true diesel-electrics: their diesel engines drove generators only.  The generators provided power to the electric motors, which drove the 
#The 2,740 hp figure is the amount of power that can be maintained for a certain period of time, like perhaps half an hour.
Another problem I have is with figures on GUPPYs provided by Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines Since 1945.  According to the book, four-engine GUPPY conversions are rated at 5,400 hp surfaced and 4,610 hp submerged.  GUPPYs with one engine removed are rated at 3,430 hp surfaced and 4,610 hp submerged.  Those numbers don't seem to work for me, though, for several reasons:
#5,400 hp divided by four engines is 1,350 hp, while 3,430 hp divided by three engines is 1,140 hp.
#Just for the heck of it, 4,610 hp divided by four is 1,150 hp.  What a coincidence!
#Mild GUPPY conversions which were only streamlined, whose batteries are just mildly updated Sargo II's, are listed with 4,610 hp submerged.
#From pg. 35 of the same book, which discussed early results with GUPPY-type batteries, it was thought that 496 GUPPY cells would be capable of producing 6,800 hp for a half hour.  As converted, GUPPYs actually had 504 cells.
I've also seen a few scattered sources saying that GUPPYs were downrated to 4,610 hp on diesels.  Here's one source and here's another.  That first source quotes a forum post that says they were derated because the snorkel systems were much more restrictive than the old intakes and exhausts and because lower-compression pistons were fitted.  That's sufficiently detailed for me to believe it, but neither source is what I'd consider reliable enough to cite.
The above point #4 is interesting.  If 496 GUPPY cells can produce 6,800 hp for half an hour, that's 14 hp per cell.  Multiply by 126, the number of cells in fleet boats, and you get 126 cells producing 1,700 hp.  So... compare that to the 2,740 hp "submerged power" figure for fleet boats.  This is a little bit of original research, but I think you could deduce that the 2,740 hp figure is the absolute maximum the batteries can provide to the motors, and the "half hour rate" must be much lower.
Anyway, here's what I think based on the available information:
#GUPPYs were downrated to 4,610 hp surfaced, and Friedman mixed up and/or misinterpreted some figures.
#From the information I have available, it isn't possible to determine the submerged horsepower of GUPPYs and it should not be listed.
Does anyone know any really detailed, in-depth sources on GUPPYs or perhaps have any reliable sources related to this possible downrating of their surface power? TomTheHand 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing issues with Balao class submarine propulsion 

message: This has been puzzling me for a while so I thought I'd finally ask. In the :Category:Lists of ship launches, which flag is correct to display in the "Country" box: the nationality of the shipyard or the nationality of the company it's being built for? For military craft this is always the same country, but for civilians it isn't and there doesn't seem to be an established guideline.
Currently the nationality of the shipping company is used (which, if incorrect, is mostly my fault as I've been practically the only one adding civvie ships to the lists). - Kjet 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't assume that it is always the same for Naval vessels.  I believe I saw on one of the Amphibious ship articles that some other country is having some made by Spain, Juan Carlos class sticks in my head.  --J Clear 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course several Japanese naval ships were built by Britain before the second world war... Martocticvs 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, admittedly not always, but nitpicking aside that still leaves the original question. - Kjet 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It occurs to me that List of ship launches in 1942 through 1945, are going to get pretty fat.  See my recent remarks on this page about trying to write an article about every Liberty and Victory ship (over 5000).--J Clear 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of ship launches - which flag is correct for civilian ships?