Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:08, 11 December 2008

Ships Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• WT:SHIPS
• WT:SHIP

Archives

2004 to 2005 January 2006 to June 2006 July 2006 to December 2006 January 2007 to June 2007 July 2007 to September 2007 October 2007 to November 2007 December 2007 to January 2008 February 2008 to March 2008 March 2008 to July 2008 July 2008 to September 2008 September 2008 to December 2008 December 2008 to March 2009 April 2009 to June 2009 June 2009 — /Assessment

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

List of aircraft carriers by country

i suggest deleting seaplane carriers from this list or making a separated list for them. opinions? Loosmark (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Several early seaplane tenders and carriers had flying-off platforms, and the seaplane tender article describes them as "the first aircraft carriers". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly don't delete them, at the very least retain them as a separate list. But as Graeme has said seaplane tenders/carriers and conventional aircraft carriers overlap in their roles/time periods etc, so there seems to be a reasonable argument there for retaining the two together (though clearly demarcated of course). Why do you want to separate them/delete the seaplane carriers? It would be helpful if you could set out your reasoning so we could have a clearer understanding of your proposal. Benea (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ok i can try to explain. an aircraft carrier by definition is a ship with a FLIGHT DECK and which can LAUNCH and RECOVER aircraft. this is how most dictionary define the type for example:

http://dictionary.die.net/aircraft%20carrier "a large warship that carries planes and has a long flat deck for take-offs and landings "

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aircraft+carrier "a large naval vessel designed as a mobile air base, having a long flat deck on which aircraft can take off and land at sea."

i'm aware that at the time early seaplane tenders and carriers were sometimes called aircraft carrier but they are not aircraft carriers under the modern understanding of the word. furthermore whats worse at the moment the list has many merchant ships converted to seaplanders which basicaly only had a derrick to lower a seaplane down. or very small seaplane carriers i have for example never heard of the german vessel "Hans Rolshoven" (which is on the list described as a "light tug type seaplane tender") so i went to check her data: 985 tons. not exactly "a large warship" don't you agree? i believe that people who check this list are interested to see the list of aircraft carriers in the modern understanding of the world. Loosmark (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am a supporter of the view that seaplane carriers are a similar but separate type of ship to what is defined as an aircraft carrier, and a supporter of the definition that an aircraft carrier is "a ship with a flight deck designed for the launch and recovery of multiple fixed wing aircraft". As such, I support the idea that seaplane carriers should be split into a separate list to 'conventional' aircraft carriers, and that this new list should contain ships that were operated primarily as seaplane carriers; for example, a cruiser with a launch platform/catapult and a crane/derrick for recovery of a seaplane is only a seaplane carrier in the most literal definition of the term. -- saberwyn 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed moves of some Russian and Soviet submarine articles

In response to the discussion above, I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at WP:NC-SHIPS. Details may be found here. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to this proposal, there has been an alternative renaming proposal advanced. Both proposals would benefit from more opinions from all interested editors. The original proposal and the suggested alternative are both found here — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MV Sirius Star

This oil tanker was just hijacked off the coast of Somalia and so may be of interest to this project. Also there's a discussion on Talk:Sirius Star about whether or not the proper pronouns were neuter or feminine. Input from members of this project would be of assistance. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting fun fact: this article got just under 120,000 hits in 3 days. Haus 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

MT Stolt Valor

I created this article yesterday. Now I find that the news refers to it sometimes with the prefix MT and other times with MV. What's the appropriate naming convention? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) alor

MT is perfectly fine. I added redirects from MV Stolt Valor and Stolt Valor to help people get to the article.

It might be useful to review what the prefixes mean. The prefix MT specifies that it's a motor tanker. Motor, because it's propelled by an engine, rather than sail or steam. Tanker, because it's an oil, chemical, or liquid gas tanker. MV, for motor vessel, would be perfectly acceptable, too, just a little less specific. For example, other types of ship. such a bulk carriers, car carriers, and containerships also use the MV prefix. Hope that helps. Haus 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Japanese World War II destroyers now open

The peer review for Japanese World War II destroyers is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that, I wondered if there's a standard for capitalization of name translations. I'm split between not capitalizing, 'cause they're not proper nouns in Eng, & capitalizing, 'cause they're translations of names. Thoughts? Also, do change it to reflect whatever decision is arrived at (if any... ;D) TREKphiler 06:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Project DYKs

With the additions of HMS Mahratta (G23) and SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary) today, WikiProject Ships now has 300 DYK articles listed on our DYK page. (There may be others not on the list, so if you know of any ship DYKs not listed, please add them.) Keep up the good work, everyone! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a few of mine that had been knocking about (thanks for the reminder!). Up to 310 now. Benea (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Found one of mine that wasn't on the list (added). Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow,that was quick! SS Empire Abbey created 0815 yesterday, DYK 0056 today! Mjroots (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I found five of mine that weren't there, put them in a moment ago. I couldn't help noticing the list is alphabeticed by article names, aka so that all ships with the same prefix are grouped together. Shouldn't they for the sake of consistency be alphabeticed by the actual ship name and not the article name? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

When I created the subpage, I just copied what had previously been on the main page, order and all, but I thought alphabetical (ignoring prefixes and/or disambiguations) was actually the way to go. I wanted to see if anyone else thought so, too, so I have reordered them now. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Listed below are 44 more. I don't have the time at the moment to format 'em — if someone wants to do it, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'll pick through them over the next couple of days... Haus 05:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

American President Lines

Attack Squadron 46 (United States Navy) Casco class monitor Chester - Hadlyme Ferry Concordia (ship 1696) Factory ship Flyer (steamboat) German submarine U-38 (1938) German submarine U-656 Gondola (steam yacht) Haimun Harry Price (Royal Navy) Herring Buss HMNZS Te Mana (F111) HMS Ontario (1780) HNoMS Honningsvåg HNoMS Kjell Ikazuchi class destroyer Japanese destroyer Matsu (Type D) John Kempthorne (Royal Navy officer) K-1000 battleship Lone Tree Ferry Lynchburg Ferry Lytton (sternwheeler) MF Storegut Millersburg Ferry Monohansett (steamboat) MV Ascension MV Baffin Strait (T-AK-W9519) MV Virginian (T-AK 9205) Nobby (boat) Order of battle for Convoy SC 7 Princess Royal (sloop) SC-21 (United States) Shirakumo class destroyer Sir John Moore, 1st Baronet SS Cheviot SS Pan Kraft SS Pfalz United States lightship LV-58 USS Hawaii (CB-3) USS Sandpiper (AM-51) Valley View Ferry Vorpostenboot

(outdent)All added, except for five already there (but two of those had older names which were corrected). These additions put the number at 355 now. Wow! Almost a 20% expansion in three days ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Empire ships

The Ministry of War Transport owned many ships during World War II. These all had names prefixed Empire. I've discovered a list on them all online, and using that have started working on a list for Misplaced Pages. The basic info I have collated contains enough information to enable searches to obtain information to create articles on individual ships. I've put the Empire A— ships on a subpage. Anyone who would like to create individual ship articles from the list is welcome to do so. If you are creating an article on a particular ship, please wikilink the name so that it shows up red, and add an edit note to say who is working on the article. Once created, the link will then turn blue. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin class passenger ship

I've been checking online and have been unable to verify the information on the article page. Does anyone have an alternate source that could be referenced for the Iosif Stalin and the Vyacheslav Molotov ? Shinerunner (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this article came from the Russian Misplaced Pages article, which in turn was based on a June 1991 article in the magazine BOKPYT CBETA. A partial google-translation is available here. Hope that helps. Haus 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research! I'll add the link to the article.Shinerunner (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There's some additional information available at The Soviet Fleet website here. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kjet! I've added those links to the article as well.Shinerunner (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment on Cerberus class battleship

Over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Cerberus class battleship?, I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: Cerberus class battleship, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870), as well as the template {{Cerberus class battleship}}

Based on various Australian naval history texts, I have found nothing that connects HMVS Cerberus and the concept of battleships beyond the fact that the ship's armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in the proto-battleships and battleships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, I admit out front that I have not looked deeply into content on Magdala or Abyssinia, as I have little to no access to British or Indian naval histories, and what I have found on either side of the argument is limited to websites of dubious reliability. Based on this, I believe that naming the ships as "Battleships" is a gross exaggeration of their capabilities, design, and role, and am seeking to rename the main article to Cerberus class monitor and edit the articles appropriately.

If anyone has any observations or comments, please raise them here or at the Australian MILHIST task force link above. -- saberwyn 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stone Fleet ships

Many of the ships in the Stone Fleet list have articles with the USS prefix. A quick spot check of DANFS (looked at Marcia, Margaret Scott, Peter Demill and Robin Hood) yields no evidence that they were ever commissioned into the US Navy. See also Category:United States Navy Stone Fleet ships. I think unless a citable source can be found to show they were commissioned, the articles need to be renamed (or more likely just absorbed into the Stone Fleet article). Any civil war naval buffs have a source or want to straighten this out? --J Clear (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If they were going to remain as separate articles then we would have to use the prefix for wp naming standards. However, I've long thought that the articles are far too short to warrant articles for each. So I would agree they should be merged into the stone fleet article. --Brad (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is specific criteria for the title "United States Ship". Being owned by the USN is only one of the criteria, being commissioned and being operated by uniformed navy personnel are two other important ones. DANFS is obsessed with commissioning dates, so the fact that none of these vessels have a commissioning date listed would lead one to at least doubt they were. So USS is not "the prefix" to use here. And outside of naval vessels, prefixes are uncommon for age of sail vessels (e.g. Cutty Sark, Niña). --J Clear (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed in a lot of places and the consensus was to use USS for any US Navy ship for purposes of WP naming conventions and not US Navy conventions on this issue. By your observation we should begin renaming many ship articles including USS Constitution (CC-5) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) for starters. --Brad (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Commissioned Ships

If any editors have some spare time i think theres an article that needs a major revamp.Ship Commissioning appears to be the only article on wikipedia about what a Commissioned Ship is. I was expecting to find an article along the lines of Commissioned Ship but there is nothing. It seems odd that there is no major article on this subject, considering how many lists of Commissioned ships there are and the fact commission dates appear on every ship page. Could someone please take a look at this problem if they have the time, either to try and improve the Ship Commissioning article or create a new page called Commissioned Ship. Even if it was just a stub, i think it would be worthy of an article, im just shocked there isnt one already. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be useful: Putting a Ship in commission The London Saturday Journal, February 16 1839 Petecarney (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (1934)

The National Archives of Australia has (in the last few days) declassified and released a large number of documents relating to the sinking of the Sydney. Although already rated GA, this new information should be thoroughly digested and included. We should work towards making this the FA for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Royal Australian Navy-related categories

Over my time editing articles relating to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), particulary articles relating to the ships thereof, I have become frustrated and confused with the system of categories used to categorise ship articles.

I would like to suggest a reorganisation of the category tree: Category:Naval ships of Australia at the top, with four subcategories; Category:Active naval ships of Australia, Category:Ships of Australian Colonial navies (possibly renamed), Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy, and Category:Australian naval ship stubs. The "Ships of the RAN" category would be kept empty of individual ship articles, which will be categorised into subcategories based on type (destroyer, cruiser, submarine, etc) and/or role (training ship, survey ship, etc).

Part of this reorganisation will require the creation of several subcategories based on type/role, the standardisation of category names for the same type/role (we have some that are "Type of the Royal Australian Navy", some "Type of Australia", and some "Royal Australian Navy type") and the removal of overly-specific subcategories, such as Category:Battlecruisers of Australia, (which only contains and only will contain the article HMAS Australia (1911)) or Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of Australia, (which with the exception of HMAS Albatross is identical to Category:Royal Australian Navy aircraft carriers and Category:Aircraft carriers of Australia).

I've drawn up a rough layout at User:Saberwyn/The Grand RAN/New category structure. This page also contains a breakdown of the type/role subcategories that are currently in use, need to be created, and need to have names standardised; a list of "Odd categories out" that I feel need to be merged, have their contents split out into other categories, or don't know what to do with. Some examples of how the new category structure will be applied to various RAN ship articles is provided.

Any thoughts or input would be greatly appreciated. Particularly, I would like to know if the subcategories should be standardised at "of Australia" or "of the Royal Australian Navy". -- saberwyn 11:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Our category structure is so complicated and convoluted, it makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Generally speaking, I support any effort to fix the current cat. mess, however I think we should also keep the category structure consistent across the various nations` navies (a la our WP:SHIPS-CAT project guidelines). Speaking of, I thought I remembered some discussion about updating WP:SHIPS-CAT to address the redundancy between the quasi-parallel ships of nation and ships of navy category structures (using the RAN for example, this would be Category:Naval ships of Australia and Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy). While not explicitly addressed in Saberwyn`s proposal, his example appears to do a nice job of eliminating the duplication. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorting out the navy/nation issue was one of the happy side effects I hoped to achieve with this reorganisation. As for WP:SHIPS-CAT, would it be an idea to use this reorganisation as a test case, then propose alterations to the guideline based on its successes and failures? -- saberwyn 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Category rename

I've proposed renaming Category:Bangladesh Navy Ship to Category:Ships of the Bangladesh Navy, in line with our more standard conventions as seen at Category:Ships by navy. The discussion is here, interested editors are welcome to comment. Benea (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the two examples you give use adjective forms of the navy in question, i.e. "Argentine" and "Brazilian." Wouldn't the adjective form Bangladeshi as in Category:Bangladeshi Navy Ship be more consistent? Haus 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that. We have the Argentine Navy and Brazilian Navy, but the article here is at Bangladesh Navy, which is what their official website bangladeshnavy.org terms it. As far as I can make out the demonym is 'Bangladeshi', and to be honest, their grasp of English seems a little suspect ('Equally individuals seek respect, pride and honour are in demands of the Navy.') I wonder if using the term 'Bangladesh Navy' is due to mix-up over the adjectival form of Bangladesh. But then again, we have the articles Bangladesh Army and Bangladesh Air Force, so maybe this runs deeper. Either way, it would be Category:Ships of the Bangladesh(i) Navy, rather than the format in use now, which was created by a user with a slightly flawed grasp of English (he consistently refers to 'Petrol Vassels' for example). Categorising by Navy runs off what the official name for the navy is, rather than using 'Country Navy' , so Category:Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy rather than Ships of the Chinese Navy, so I guess the important thing to discover is whether the Bangladeshi Navy is officially termed Bangladesh Navy, or whether Bangladesh Navy is a flawed attempt at the adjectival form of Bangladesh. Benea (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bangladesh Navy" sounds, to my ears, like "Germany Navy" or "Poland Navy" — which is to say patently incorrect. However, as you point out, the issue goes well beyond SHIPS: perhaps it'd make sense to try to build consensus at WT:MILHIST? Haus 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it back: apparently "Bangladesh Navy" is the correct term. Anybody want to join me in a fielding a petition to Iajuddin Ahmed to please, please have it changed? Haus 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Request rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia

Can an admin rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia? Haus 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shimgray | talk | 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Haus 17:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Template to handle all ship classes

Examples

• USS Cape St. George (CG-71)
• MV Sirius Star

I noticed several uses of templates to link to ships such as the {{USS}} (USS example) or {{MV}} (MV example). Which is nice but some of the abbreviations are already in use such as {{FV}} (). I am creating a {{Ship}} that will handle all ship classes. -- Cat 12:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That seemingly would be redundant, as there is already {{warship}} that handles most prefixes. The USS/HMS et al specific ones are for greater convenience so there would be no benefit in discontinuing those. Martocticvs (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. {{Warship}} already does this in a more robust manner (it properly handles, for example, disambiguation terms). Perhaps it might be better if Template:Ship redirected to Template:Warship? This would solve an issue mentioned previously where editors didn't wish to use a template called warship for ships that were not actually warships. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now redirected {{ship}} to {{warship}}. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Warship cannot handle ships like MVs or FVs as neither are warships. If anything {{warship}} should be moved to {{ship}}. -- Cat 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense: {{Ship|FV|Northwestern}} produces FV Northwestern. Yes, it looks silly in the edit window to see a fishing boat called a "warship" but it does work. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem I can see is that if a ship is disambiguated by year launched, then that is show in the resulting wikilink, which IMO is a) unnecessary and b) ugly. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the optional display parameters, the disambiguation can be hidden. For example {{ship|SS|Ohioan|1914|2}} produces Ohioan — Bellhalla (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the current template {{ship}} is redundant to {{warship}} in terms of its purpose and functionality, and there's no point having two that do the same. Template:warship could be renamed to Template:ship if deemed appropriate, but there's no reason to replace examples of {{MV}}, or {{USS}} where they appear in articles with {{ship}} or {{warship}}. Benea (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support renaming {{warship}} to be {{ship}}, leaving the warship template as the redirect. The reason I support this is both for accuracy in terminology (the template can work for all ships, not just warships), and because I'm extraordinarily lazy and support having three fewer letters to type each time I want to use the template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the "warship" template should be moved to the more generic "ship" template. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also would have no objections to {{warship}} moving to {{ship}} (though I don't think I've ever used it!) Martocticvs (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that only one template should do the work. The template warship is a nice one that does the task ship is intended to do. I have an approved bot that can replace all instances of {{USS}} and {{MV}} and any other template with {{Ship}} or {{Warship}}. Do we really need a formal request to move {{Warship}} to {{Ship}}? -- Cat 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would strongly oppose any move to replace uses of {{USS}} or the other similar short-hand prefix templates. They are much more convenient to use than having to pick the warship template, and then the extra bit of code where you say what prefix you want (and are less confusing to editors not familiar with the templates). So in my opinion {{USS}}, {{HMS}} etc should be left alone, along with all their uses. Martocticvs (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Think about it for a second:

USS shipname (number): {{USS|shipname|number}}

USS shipname (number): {{Ship|USS|shipname|number}}

It doesn't look complicated to me.

A lot of navies do not have a template like the INS. Instead of creating one template per every class of ship and every navy we can do all of that with the current warship template. One only needs to add a single parameter for all that.

-- Cat 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec but saying much the same thing as Martocticvs) Support moving {{warship}} to {{ship}}, oppose deprecating prefix specific templates. They're widely used and convenient. They're also easier for new users to grasp and require less code when writing. {{ship}} would be the fall back if in the rare case the prefix does not have its own template, or if you're formatting a ship which doesn't use a prefix (German battleship Bismarck for example.) It really isn't necessary to change the use of the prefix templates for change's sake. Benea (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't for changes sake. Templates like USS and MV are obsolete with warship template. It seems like the people will oppose what I have to say for the sake of opposing as usual so I will not be paying attention to this thread anymore. Do as you please and please do notify me if you have changed your mind. I sincerely apologize for trying to do something useful, I should have known better. -- Cat 17:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not being opposed for the sake of opposing it - the reasons for opposition have been given. Seeing as we seem to be agreed that moving warship to ship would be a good idea, it would seem your original suggestion has been agreed, in fact. There's just no purpose to be served in playing with the short-hand templates. Martocticvs (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason USS and HMS have their own templates is because they are extremely heavily used. For navies with few ships I agree, this is no sense creating a shorthand template for it if the warship/ship template has the functionality for it. But with USS and HMS, that must each have many thousands of uses by now, it would be counter-productive to remove them. They were introduced while warship existed, for one thing, which should say something. Martocticvs (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I support moving {{warship}} to {{ship}} ... but I wanted to clarify that I also do not support deprecating the shorthand templates {{USS}}, {{MV}}, {{RMS}}, etc. There's simply no value in it - the existing links serve a useful purpose, especially for newer users.

However, to help simplify maintenance, I would recommend re-writing the shorthand templates to be calls to {{ship}}. That way, should there ever be a need to fix/modify/add an output variable, it can more easilly be done to the single central template - if all the shorthand versions call that template, the additional formatting option/correction would automatically be picked up. Meaning, maintenance only need to be done to a single template, and not manually added to all of them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I support moving {{warship}} to the name {{ship}}. I also support recoding the various other shortcut templates into using {{ship}} as a meta-template, similar to the way {{Cite DANFS}} uses {{Cite web}}, but I do not support wholesale removal of existing uses of current shortcuts, per Martocticvs. Several of the existing shortcut templates, however, have extra options that would need to be considered, such as the optional slash for {{MV}} and {{MS}}, and the optional sub parameter for {{SMS}}. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Not sure how easy/hard it would be to do though, but certainly redirecting USS, HMS and the others into one all-purpose template is a good idea, so long as all the current functionality is retained. Martocticvs (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Converting the templates would be trivial. I was just cautioning that they are currently not all identical. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you all move like greased lightening! (Teach me to take a weekend off!) Nice work everyone on quickly hashing this out and coming up with a good consensus decision! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've edited {{SS}} and {{HMS}} and requested an edit to the protected {{USS}} so that all will use {{ship}} as a meta-template. I selected these three highly transcluded templates so that if there are any problems they will be noticed sooner. The changes for each were tested in their own sandboxes and testcases pages (Template:/sandbox and Template:/testcases). If there are any problems with any of the changes, please let me know. Otherwise I'll start on converting the others tomorrow. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I was going to ask if we should have the rest of the templates protected, but figured that would be too beansian. As such, I went ahead and fully protected all of the templates transcluded to 100+ pages, then semi-protected the rest. I think I have all of these templates on my watchlist now, but if changes need to be made to any of them, just follow the usual route. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Based on the above discussion, I have requested a move of Template:Warship to Template:Ship on the requested moves page, here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate {{warship}} now?

Since {{warship}} now redirects to {{ship}}, is there any objection to following the same process we used when consolidating our infobox templates, namely:

1. replace occurences of warship with ship
2. when finished with step 1, deprecate warship, and
3. finally run warship through the WP:TFD process

Cheers. Haus 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We should probably keep the redirect at {{warship}} for some time, as editors may take a while to transition to the new, shorter name. On the topic of replacing the template occurances, currently I am churning through with AWB, but a surprisingly large number of articles need to be manually edited because {{warship}} was used instead of {{HMCS}} and {{SMS}} (no doubt because it predates them) as well as several instances where it was used instead of {{HMS}} and {{USS}} (perhaps due to force-of-habit). --Kralizec! (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite the same as the infoboxes, since it's a redirect, and, thus, no longer a different template anymore. In looking at reasons to delete a redirect, I don't really see any that apply directly to this situation. I also honestly don't see any advantage to wholesale replacing of instances of {{Ship}}, but, conversely, see disadvantages—clogging watchlists with no net benefit to readers, for example, which borders on the trivial. Every editor's manner of spending their wiki-time is of their own choosing, but in my view, it's a waste of time. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see any harm in keeping that one there, as a redirect. As long as they are both reading off the same... wiki sheet :D... there shouldn't be any issues. Martocticvs (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have engaged my bot to replace each instance of {{warship}} with {{ship}}. The redirect can stay of course... Ideally you do not want multiple references to the same template. People shouldn't learn the wrong way. :) -- Cat 12:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:DANFS

Please join the discussion here: Template_talk:DANFS#Problem_with_category_inclusion —G716 <·_C> 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Conqueror (1855)

A new article, needs a bit of work to bash into shape though. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article rename

I ran across this stub Provence II (shipwreck) and wanted to know if it should be renamed? Shinerunner (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Provence II. Haus 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question: why is the article titled Provence II, but referred to as La Provence in the text? Has anyone the sources in the article to compare? Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't La Provence the name prior to wartime service? Shinerunner (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just tweaked the text to focus on the ship as a ship. The article claims La Provence was the name before refitting as an aux cruiser. Haus 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Naval Historical Center has changed names

The Naval Historical Center has officially changed names to Naval History & Heritage Command according to the main page of the website. I suppose there are some templates in use that will need to be updated. --Brad (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) now open

The A-Class review for SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Liberty incident now open

The peer review for USS Liberty incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Empire State V article is bonkers

Empire State V. Can anyone spot what is wrong here? Infobox won't align, text is messed around and uncat tag is into the infobox. I've spent 15 minutes on this already. --Brad (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Un-bonked. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dangit. I knew it had to be something simple like that. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Giving a hawsepiper a golden opportunity like this to make fun of SUNY Maritime cadets, yet expecting him to be WP:CIVIL is just mean. :) Haus 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can relate. That's why I stay away from Phil Collins an FA no less. I might need an Airsickness bag. --Brad (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PFS Polarstern

Is this article using the correct ship prefix? I thought that it would be RV or MV. Shinerunner (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the external links and the German article, I don't see anything to support PFS as a prefix or part of the ship's name. The article's creator only had about 150 edits, and the last one was in 2005. Personally, I'd lean towards renaming it as MV. Haus 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Concurred with Haus. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to MV Polarstern completed. Also, thanks Haus and Kjet for guessing the current value of my 401K plan! Shinerunner (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that PFS is short for Polarforschungsschiff = Polar research vessel. There is a picture on the official site captioned "FS Polarstern", and Google gives about 13,400 hits. Presumably FS is short for forschungsschiff = research vessel. So I'd expect the english transliteration to be "RV" google gives about 23,200 for "RV Polarstern" but only about 138 for "MV Polarstern". That is the evidence which causes me to lean toward RV.--Petecarney (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncompleted ship class importance level?

I raised a question a while back at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Assessment in regard to the importance of uncompleted ship classes and got no responses, so I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience. What should the importance assessment be for an uncompleted ship class? The importance scale suggests that uncompleted ships should assessed as "Low", but there is no comparable suggestion for an uncompleted ship class. The way I see it there are two approaches suggested by the importance scale:

• Because ship classes are inherently more important than individual ships ("High" vs. "Mid" for typical examples), an uncompleted ship class should be similarly assessed one notch higher than uncompleted ships, i.e. "Mid" vs. Low"
• Anything uncompleted or cancelled is inherently of "Low" importance

I bring this up because uncompleted ship class articles seem to have widely varying importance ratings, ranging from "High" for Error: {{sclass}} invalid format code: 6. Should be 0–5, or blank (help), to "Low" for Error: {{sclass}} invalid format code: 6. Should be 0–5, or blank (help). Any suggestions for what the guideline should be? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that this is one of those borderline cases where you can go either way without ruffling feathers. If you want to keep some wiggle room, you might change the guideline to put "important" uncompleted ship class articles in mid and "less important" uncompleted ship classes in low. Just a thought. Haus 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is even ship classes that were never completed are still low importance. They may have been important to the Navy at the particular time but in context with WP they aren't adding much to the information stream. I agree that there are varying assessments on some of our unbuilt ship classes but I'm not interested in starting a reassessment campaign. --Brad (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not trying to create work for anyone :) What if we added in this line:

• Articles for canceled ship classes, like Error: {{sclass}} invalid format code: 6. Should be 0–5, or blank (help)

to the "Example" column for "Low" importance, then? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I added that into the column. I've been working on updating that page. --Brad (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guide regarding list of Commanding Officers sections

While working on improving the article USS Alexandria (SSN-757), I found that other articles about warships, both surface and submarine, often included a section listing commanding officers.

Analysis

I sampled the articles by doing the following two searches:

1. list of commanding officers, then opened articles then opened all articles on the 1 search page about any kind of warship,
2. list of commanding officers submarine, then opened all articles on the 1 search page about any kind of submarine

Findings

I found that there is a lack of consistency in naming, placement and format of such lists. Here's what I found

Surface ships

• One (1) article, List of Commanding Officers of the USS Nevada (BB-36), was a seperate list, but that list was just a bulleted list
• Two (2) articles, USS Vincennes (CA-44) and USS Vincennes (CG-49), have sections List of Commanding Officers as the 1 section in the article
• Five (5) articles, Japanese cruiser Katori, German cruiser Admiral Hipper, HMS Duncan (D99) & German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee & HMS Victorious (R38) have subsections listing Commanding Officers as the last section before the References section. However, Japanese cruiser Katori names the section List of Commanding Officers, while German cruiser Admiral Hipper, HMS Duncan (D99) & German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee name it Commanding Officers (the Graf Spee places the section one section above References, just above Popular Culture, while the Victorious places it just above the Bibliography section).

Submarines

• USS Asheville (SSN-758) lists COs, XOs, and COBs as seperate sections of bulleted lists, in that order, near the top of the article (starting as the 3 section, named Commanding Officers)
• USS Triton (SSRN-586) (a Good Article), has a Commanding Officers section, as a bulleted list, near the bottom of the article (above the Legacy section)
• USS Indianapolis (SSN-697) has a List of Commanding Officers as the 1 section of the article, as bulleted list
• USS Tucson (SSN-770) (as an aside, the lead is much too long in this article), has a List of Commanding Officers as the 1 section of the article, as an unbulleted list
• One other submarine article (sorry, but I misplaced the reference), shows the list as a table

Conclusions and recommended style

# Section naming. Warship articles, whether surface of submarine, should name sections that list Commanding Officers as Commanding Officers, not List of Commanding Officers . This seems to be the most common naming convention

1. List format. The list should be given as a bulleted list, in the form used in the USS Triton (SSRN-586), not an unbulleted list or table
2. Section placement. The list should be the last section of the article, before See also, References, or External links--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has comments and/or other views, please let me know. For the current article I am working on improving, USS Alexandria (SSN-757), I will implement the list of COs using the recommended style noted above. If there is consensus, I'll work through the list of submarines and move/rename/redo the lists of Commanding Officers, if any.--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are lists like this really notable? Obviously notable individuals who commanded a particular ship should certainly be linked and acknowledged, but doesn't something like this creep into the realm of indiscriminate information? As a point of comparison, neither Navsource.org nor the online version of DANFS have lists of commanding officers. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. Let me address it point by point:

• I agree that officers of any ship/boat that are of WP:NOTE should be referenced, if not briefly discussed, in a ship/boat's article
• The lists I saw did not violate the 5 points listed in Misplaced Pages:INDISCRIMINATE#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
  • Certainly not every (and, from by brief recollection, few) of the officers listed are notable enough for their own articles, so I believe they are allowed
• As for availability of lists of Commanding officers, the Office of the Director of Naval History, Naval History & Heritage Command, maintains a website that provides the "Command History" of every US Navy Ship currently commissioned - each history is authored and signed by the ship's Commanding Officer:

A Chief of Naval Operations' instruction (OPNAVINST 5750.12J) requires all commissioned ships in the Navy to submit an annual Command Operations Report, formerly known as the Command History Report. This report covers the operational and administrative actions of the command for each calendar year. To provide the crew of the current commissioned ships with a better understanding of its history, and in concert with the histories in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, the annual history/command operational reports are posted for reference purposes.
...Please note the reports listed here are only for current commissioned ships....
THIS IS A LONG RANGE PROGRAM TO SCAN AND POST THESE REPORTS. AT THIS TIME THE "A" through "L" SHIP'S LISTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. SPECIFIC HISTORY REPORTS FOR L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, AND W SHIPS HAVE BEEN POSTED.

Thus, it seems to me, your question is "Should any articles list COs or other officers?". That had not been my question., but my refined proposal follows:

Commanding Officers' section.

1. Articles regarding US Navy ships (boats) in this project that are assessed at the level of Good article or better must include a Commanding Officers section, with as complete a list of COs as information is available (see caveat quoted from NavHist website, noted above).
2. Articles regarding other ships (boats) in this project that are assessed at the level of Good article or better should include a Commanding Officers section, with a list of COs (which may be incomplete), if such information exists.
3. Officers subordinate to the CO, NCOs, and Enlisted personnel should not be listed unless they are of of WP:NOTE
4. The format of such lists shall be as follows:

* rank-abbreviation Firstname Mi Lastname, service — from-month from-year to to-month to-year

e.g.,

* FADM Samuel J. Azzarreps, USN — June 1985 to April 1988

5. The section should be the last section of the article, but before See also, References, or External links

As a reminder, the reason I raised this issue was due to:

• a desire to improve the quality of the USS Alexandria (SSN-757) to that of the USS Triton (SSRN-586), a Good Article — the Triton article includes a Commanding Officers section
• a desire to to maintain the consistent, encyclopedic appearance of such articles emphasis added--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your thoughts. I'm eager to hear any further comments you have, as well as those of others.

Cheers, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that lists of commanding officers can be found and properly sourced. But perhaps I didn't clearly convey my meaning in regard to the mention of Navsource.org and the online version of DANFS. Both websites provide information on U.S. Navy ships and would properly be considered specialist websites in regard to U.S. Navy ships. In each case, however, an editorial decision was made somewhere along the line to not include commanding officers. It's notable to me that these two websites, specializing in U.S. Navy ship information do not include lists of commanding officers. For Misplaced Pages, as a general interest encyclopedia and not a U.S. Navy encyclopedia, I'm not sure I see the relevance of lists of commanding officers. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your points, Bellhalla. I understand and agree with your points. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bellhalla. I do not see the relevance of a list of commanding officers to an article on the history of a warship in a general encyclopedia. Most of these fine people were simply doing the job assigned to them, and the history of the ship would not be much different if Officer Foo had command instead of Officer Bar. Some of the commanding officers are important to the history of the ship, but these can be mentioned in the text where their presence is relevant to the ship's history. -- saberwyn 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, saberwyn. I agree, too. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Two notions I tend to agree with: if an article has a list of COs:

1. ==Commanding officers== would probably be preferable to ==List of commanding officers==
2. Such a list would probably be best towards the end of the article

There may be some articles in which such a list would be encyclopedic, but the vast majority wouldn't be. These lists would also tend to perpetuate the myth that the CO does anything other than annoy the quartermasters. Cheers. Haus 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Haus. I agree with all of your points except the last sentance (grin), but I'm a bit biased. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, lists of commanding officers seems superfluous: if a particular officer played a notable role in the history of the ship, then he will be mentioned in the prose of the article. Someone who only appears in a list seems to me to be essentially not notable, and thus probably shouldn't be mentioned. I'm not at all fond of lists inside articles as I feel they generally detract - if something is worth mentioning, it can be mentioned properly in the text. Martocticvs (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the whole shebang, I will agree that in most cases there is no reason to have a list of commanding officers for any one particular ship. If the CO's aren't notable enough to be included in the article text then there is not much of a reason to list them. USS Constitution has had 70 CO's during her career but I probably mentioned no more than 15 in the article text. An external link in the article leads to an entire listing of CO's if anyone were interested in knowing. --Brad (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Martocticvs - you make an excellent point, with which I agree. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, with one unresolved question

Thank you, again, all that provided their comments. I believe consensus was reached as follows:

Points of Consensus

• (All agreed) As a general rule, articles should not have lists of Commanding Officers, or other crew. Officers are crew that are of WP:NOTE should be discussed in the body of the article.
• Should a list of Commanding officers be provided in an article:
  • (Two agree, no dissent) It should be titled === Commanding Officers ===, not === List of Commanding Officers ===
  • (Two agree, no dissent) It should be placed "towards the bottom of the article" (I'll interpret that more precisely to meet the location specification I suggested: the section should be the last section of the article, but before See also, References, or External links)
  • (I proposed, no dissent) The sections should be of a consistently format (I'll interpret that more precisely to meet the location specification I suggested: the format of such lists shall be as follows: "* rank-abbreviation Firsttame Mi Lastname, service — from-month from-year to to-month to-year", e.g., "* FADM Samuel J. Azzarreps, USN — June 1985 to April 1988"

Consensus (I proposed, no one disagreed): What to do with articles that do contain Sections of lists of Officers

Note: as no one seems to disagree, I'm changing the title of this section to Consensus from Question, and removed the trailing question mark "?".--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue was not explicitly addressed by any of the comments. However, interpolating from the comments received, I propose to take the following actions, unless someone objects:

1. In the article on which I'm working, as well as any subsequent articles I edit or author, I will not add a list of officers or crew of any sort. If any such are of WP:NOTE, I'll reference in the main body of the article
2. As an interim measure (because I can do so quickly, easily and with precision), I'll find all articles that contain lists of crew (e.g., === Commanding Officers === or === List of Commanding Officers ===) and make them be of:
   1. Consistent name: === Commanding Officers ===, (Done --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
   2. Consistent format: as described above, and,
   3. Consistent location: as described above. (In progress --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

The reason for doing so is to quickly attain increased encyclopedic consitency among these articles.

1. As a longer-term measure, I'll re-examine these articles, one by one, and look for evidence of notability of the crew listed (for consistency and ease of review, I'll look for existing Wiki articles, but also do a Google and Google news search). If I find one or more of note, I'll mention in the body of the article. The remainder, and the section/list in which they're contained, I'll remove. This won't be finishd overnight, but I think is a worthy task

Cheers, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your "Points of Consensus"/Item 2/sub item 3, beginning "(I proposed, no dissent) The sections…" Using abbreviations, like "FADM", while perhaps making sense to WP:SHIPS members, is probably not going to mean anything to a typical 12-year-old using Misplaced Pages as a source for a report. If (which is a big if in my view, as stated above) there is a list, let's please not use jargon-y abbreviations. — Bellhalla (talk)

No problem, rather than abbreviations for titles, if there is a list, we'll use fully spelled out tiles (e.g., instead of FADM, use Fleet Admiral.

P.S. I rather liked seeing my example (my last name spelled in reverse, and my first and middle names reversed) having a five-star flag rank. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that; we need to remember that likely a majority of the readers will not be subject-matter experts, and we shouldn't assume they know what these jargon-y abbreviations mean. Parsecboy (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See my comment, above. I agree. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

US BB Class chronology messed up

The preceded by/followed by links in the US BB class are messed up around the South Dakota class Wezelboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

No they are not, we include the canceled classes. Therefore the progression is Colorado, South Dakota (1920), North Carolina, South Dakota (1939). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lexington class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Lexington class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Ships FACs that need attention

There are two ship articles at FAC that could benefit from additional input. The nomination for SS Dakotan is here, and the nomination for SS Washingtonian is here. Both have been open for some time. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Princess Sophia

I reassessed this to B class today. Does it have the potential to go to GA class? Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note for the editor who did the bulk of the work. It's not far off. Maralia (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Help required

Bizzare question time, can anyone identify the ship in this photo please? cheers muchly 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Normandie. Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

• List of ships attacked by Somali pirates

The list needs to be expanded based on the info from International Maritime Organization. There are a number pf PDFs from the IMO at http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334

Mind that the IMO info is for piracy world wide. Article is confined only to "Somali pirates".

-- Cat 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Project-Class Ships pages
• All WikiProject Ships pages
• WikiProject Ships archives