Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Ships: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:59, 11 December 2008 edit4wajzkd02 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers8,094 edits →Consensus (I proposed, no one disagreed): What to do with articles that do contain Sections of lists of Officers: interim report← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:54, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 76) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{WikiProject Ships |class=NA |importance=NA }}
{{talkheader|wp=yes|WT:SHIPS|WT:SHIP}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Shortcut|WT:SHIPS|WT:SHIP}}
{{WikiProject Ships}}

}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-06-28/WikiProject report|writer=]||day=28|month=June|year=2010}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config <!-- lowercase sigmabot III uses MizaBot's configuration settings -->
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 11
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|counter = 76
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(21d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
<!-- 2016-03-30: ClueBot III stopped working at the end of February 2016. Its configuration is commented out but retained (at least for the time being) as a reference -->
<!-- {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=504
|index=no
|minarchthreads=2
|minkeepthreads=4
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
|header={{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchsize=100000
|maxkeepbytes=200000
|numberstart= 32
}} -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships/sidebar}}


==Mystery lifesaving apparatus==
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships/Talkarchive}}
Can anyone identify (middle picture, bottom row) please? ] (]) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

== List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country ==

]

i suggest deleting seaplane carriers from this list or making a separated list for them. opinions? ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed moves of some Russian and Soviet submarine articles ==

In response to the discussion ], I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at ]. Details may be found ]. All comments are welcome. — ] (]) 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 ] — ] (]) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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 ] about whether or not the proper pronouns were neuter or feminine. Input from members of this project would be of assistance. ] (]) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

: Interesting fun fact: this article got just under . <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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? --] (]) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
alor
: MT is perfectly fine. I added redirects from {{MV|Stolt Valor}} and '']'' 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. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

== Peer review for ] now open ==

The ] for ] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 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) ] ]</font> 06:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

== Project DYKs ==

With the additions of {{HMS|Mahratta|G23}} and {{SMS|U-4|Austria-Hungary|sub=y}} today, WikiProject Ships now has 300 DYK articles listed on our ]. (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! — ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::Found one of mine that wasn't on the list (added). ] (]) 20:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Wow,that was quick! {{SS|Empire Abbey}} created 0815 yesterday, DYK 0056 today! ] (]) 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? — ] (]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]) 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. — ] (]) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Listed below are 44 more. I don't have the time at the moment to format 'em {{emdash}} if someone wants to do it, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'll pick through them over the next couple of days... <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 05:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>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
</blockquote>

(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 ;) — ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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'' ? ] (]) 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 . Hope that helps. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the research! I'll add the link to the article.] (]) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::There's some additional information available at The Soviet Fleet website . — ] (]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kjet! I've added those links to the article as well.] (]) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

== Requesting comment on ] ==

Over at ], I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: ], ], ], and ], as well as the template {{tl|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 ] 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. -- ] 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Stone Fleet ships ==

Many of the ships in the ] 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 ]. 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 ] article). Any civil war naval buffs have a source or want to straighten this out? --] (]) 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 ] article. --] (]) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::There is specific criteria for the title "United States Ship". Being owned by the ] 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. ], ]). --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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.] 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 ] 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 ] article or create a new page called ]. Even if it was just a stub, i think it would be worthy of an article, im just shocked there isnt one already. Thanks ] (]) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:This may be useful: The London Saturday Journal, February 16 1839 ] (]) 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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. ] (]) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== Reorganisation of Royal Australian Navy-related categories ==

Over my time editing articles relating to the ] (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: ] at the top, with four subcategories; ], ] (possibly renamed), ], and ]. 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 ], (which only contains and only will contain the article ]) or ], (which with the exception of HMAS ''Albatross'' is identical to ] and ]).

I've drawn up a rough layout at ]. 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". -- ] 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 ] project guidelines). Speaking of, I thought I remembered some discussion about updating ] 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 {{cl|Naval ships of Australia}} and {{cl|Ships of the Royal Australian Navy}}). While not explicitly addressed in ''Saberwyn`s'' proposal, his ] appears to do a nice job of eliminating the duplication. --] (]) 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? -- ] 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

== Category rename ==

I've proposed renaming ] to ], in line with our more standard conventions as seen at ]. The discussion is ], interested editors are welcome to comment. ] (]) 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 ] be more consistent? <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
::I wondered that. We have the ] and ], but the article here is at ], which is what their official website 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 ] and ], 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 ] 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. ] (]) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
::: "Bangladesh Navy" sounds, to my ears, like "Germany Navy" or "Poland Navy" {{emdash}} 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 ]? <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 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? <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

== Request rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia ==

Can an admin rename ] to ]? <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

:: Thanks much! <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 17:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

== Template to handle all ship classes ==

;Examples:
*{{ship|USS|Cape St. George|CG-71}}
*{{ship|MV|Sirius Star}}

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

:That seemingly would be redundant, as there is already {{tl|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. ] (]) 13:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::Agree. {{tl|Warship}} already does this in a more robust manner (it properly handles, for example, disambiguation terms). Perhaps it might be better if ] redirected to ]? 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. — ] (]) 13:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I have now redirected {{tl|ship}} to {{tl|warship}}. — ] (]) 14:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Warship cannot handle ships like MVs or FVs as neither are warships. If anything {{tl|warship}} should be moved to {{tl|ship}}. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nonsense: <code><nowiki>{{warship|FV|Northwestern}}</nowiki></code> produces {{warship|FV|Northwestern}}. Yes, it looks silly in the edit window to see a fishing boat called a "warship" but it ''does'' work. — ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Using the optional display parameters, the disambiguation can be hidden. For example <code><nowiki>{{ship|SS|Ohioan|1914|2}}</nowiki></code> produces {{ship|SS|Ohioan|1914|2}} — ] (]) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Clearly the current template {{tl|ship}} is redundant to {{tl|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 {{tl|MV}}, or {{tl|USS}} where they appear in articles with {{tl|ship}} or {{tl|warship}}. ] (]) 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I would support renaming {{tl|warship}} to be {{tl|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. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I agree, the "warship" template should be moved to the more generic "ship" template. ] (]) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I also would have no objections to {{tl|warship}} moving to {{tl|ship}} (though I don't think I've ever used it!) ] (]) 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 ] bot that can replace all instances of {{tl|USS}} and {{tl|MV}} and any other template with {{tl|Ship}} or {{tl|Warship}}. Do we really need a formal request to move {{tl|Warship}} to {{tl|Ship}}? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:(outdent) I would strongly oppose any move to replace uses of {{tl|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 {{tl|USS}}, {{tl|HMS}} etc should be left alone, along with all their uses. ] (]) 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::Think about it for a second:
:::{{USS|shipname|number}}: <nowiki>{{USS|shipname|number}}</nowiki>
:::{{Ship|USS|shipname|number}}: <nowiki>{{Ship|USS|shipname|number}}</nowiki>
::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.
::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::(ec but saying much the same thing as ]) Support moving {{tl|warship}} to {{tl|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. {{tl|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 ({{warship|German battleship|Bismarck}} for example.) It really isn't necessary to change the use of the prefix templates for change's sake. ] (]) 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. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:As mentioned above, I support moving {{tl|warship}} to {{tl|ship}} ... but I wanted to clarify that I also do not support deprecating the shorthand templates {{tl|USS}}, {{tl|MV}}, {{tl|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 {{tl|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. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::I support moving {{tl|warship}} to the name {{tl|ship}}. I also support recoding the various other shortcut templates into using <code><nowiki>{{ship}}</nowiki></code> as a meta-template, similar to the way {{tl|Cite DANFS}} uses {{tl|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 {{tl|MV}} and {{tl|MS}}, and the optional sub parameter for {{tl|SMS}}. — ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Converting the templates would be trivial. I was just cautioning that they are currently not all identical. — ] (]) 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! --] (]) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:I've edited {{tl|SS}} and {{tl|HMS}} and requested an edit to the protected {{tl|USS}} so that all will use {{tl|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. — ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ]. Thanks! --] (]) 14:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

== Requested move ==

{{resolved|1=Move completed by ].}}
Based on the above discussion, I have requested a move of ] to ] on the requested moves page, ]. — ] (]) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

== Deprecate {{tl|warship}} now? ==

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

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

Cheers. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:We should probably keep the redirect at {{tl|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 {{tl|warship}} was used instead of {{tl|HMCS}} and {{tl|SMS}} (no doubt because it predates them) as well as several instances where it was used instead of {{tl|HMS}} and {{tl|USS}} (perhaps due to force-of-habit). --] (]) 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 ], 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 <nowiki>{{warship}}</nowiki>, 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. — ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I have engaged my bot to replace each instance of {{tl|warship}} with {{tl|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. :) --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's not ''wrong'' if, (a), it redirects to the same template, and, (b), it works. Thanks to your bot run, my watchlist is overflowing with changes that have ''no net benefit'' to our readers. — ] (]) 15:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please join the discussion here: ] &mdash;''''']'''''&nbsp;&lt;]·]&gt; 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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

== Article rename ==

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

: {{done}} Moved to ]. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 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? ] (]) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Wasn't ''La Provence'' the name prior to wartime service? ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

== Naval Historical Center has changed names ==

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

== A-Class review for ] now open ==

The ] for ] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

== Peer review for ] now open ==

The ] for ] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

== Empire State V article is bonkers ==

]. 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. --] (]) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
:Un-bonked. ] (]) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::Dangit. I knew it had to be something simple like that. Thanks. --] (]) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::: Giving a ] a golden opportunity like this to make fun of SUNY Maritime cadets, yet expecting him to be ] is just mean. :) <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I can relate. That's why I stay away from ] an FA no less. I might need an ]. --] (]) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Is this article using the correct ship prefix? I thought that it would be RV or MV. ] (]) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
: Looking through the external links and the , 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. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
::Concurred with Haus. — ] (]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree as well. ] (]) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Move to MV Polarstern completed. Also, thanks Haus and Kjet for guessing the current value of my ] plan! ] (]) 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.--] (]) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

== Uncompleted ship class importance level? ==

I ] a while back at ] 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 ] 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 {{sclass|Montana|battleship|6}}, to "Low" for {{sclass|U-52|submarine|6}}. Any suggestions for what the guideline should be? — ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 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. --] (]) 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 {{sclass|U-101|submarine|6}}
:::to the "Example" column for "Low" importance, then? — ] (]) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok I added that into the column. I've been working on updating that page. --] (]) 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 ]s, both surface and submarine, often included a section listing ]s.
=== Analysis ===
I sampled the articles by doing the following two searches:
# , then opened articles then opened all articles on the 1<sup>st</sup> search page about any kind of ],
# , then opened all articles on the 1<sup>st</sup> search page about any kind of ]
=== 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, ], was a seperate list, but that list was just a bulleted list
* Two (2) articles, ] and ], have sections '''List of Commanding Officers''' as the 1<sup>st</sup> section in the article
* Five (5) articles, ], ], ] & ] & ] have subsections listing Commanding Officers as the last section before the References section. However, ] names the section '''List of Commanding Officers''', while ], ] & ] 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 ====
* ] lists COs, XOs, and COBs as seperate sections of bulleted lists, in that order, near the top of the article (starting as the 3<sup>rd</sup> section, named '''Commanding Officers''')
* ] (a ]), has a '''Commanding Officers''' section, as a bulleted list, ''near'' the bottom of the article (above the '''Legacy''' section)
* ] has a '''List of Commanding Officers''' as the 1<sup>st</sup> section of the article, as bulleted list
* ] (as an aside, the lead is much too long in this article), has a '''List of Commanding Officers''' as the 1<sup>st</sup> 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 ===
<strike># 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
# List format. The list should be given as a ''bulleted'' list, in the form used in the ], not an unbulleted list or table
# Section placement. The list should be the last section of the article, before '''See also''', '''References''', or '''External links'''</strike>--] (]) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has comments and/or other views, please let me know. <strike>For the current article I am working on improving, ], 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.</strike>--] (]) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, --] (]) 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 ]? As a point of comparison, neither nor the online version of '']'' have lists of commanding officers. — ] (]) 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 ] 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 ]
::** Certainly not every (and, from by brief recollection, few) of the officers listed are ] 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, ], 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 ]: {{Quote box
| quote = A ]' instruction (OPNAVINST 5750.12J) requires all ] 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.<br>...'''Please note the reports listed here are only for current commissioned ships.'''...<br>'''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.'''
| source =
| align = center
}}
::Thus, it seems to me, your question is "Should any articles list COs or other officers?". That had not been my question.<strike>, but my refined '''proposal''' follows:
:: '''Commanding Officers' section'''.
::# Articles regarding US Navy ships (boats) in this project that are ] at the level of ] 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).
::# Articles regarding other ships (boats) in this project that are ] at the level of ] or better '' should'' include a '''Commanding Officers''' section, with a list of COs (which may be incomplete), if such information exists.
::# Officers subordinate to the ], ], and ] personnel should not be listed unless they are of of ]
::# The format of such lists shall be as follows:
:: * rank-abbreviation '''Firstname Mi Lastname''', service &mdash; from-month from-year to to-month to-year
:: e.g.,
:: * FADM '''Samuel J. Azzarreps''', USN &mdash; June 1985 to April 1988
::5. The section should be the ''last'' section of the article, but before '''See also''', '''References''', or '''External links'''</strike>

::As a reminder, the reason I raised this issue was due to:
::* a desire to improve the quality of the ] to that of the ], a ] &mdash; the ''Triton'' article includes a '''Commanding Officers''' section
::* '''a desire to to maintain the consistent, encyclopedic appearance of such articles''' ''emphasis added''--] (]) 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, --] (]) 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 and the online version of '']''. 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. — ] (]) 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Thank you for clarifying your points, ]<sup>(])</sup>. I understand and agree with your points. --] (]) 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. -- ] 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Thank you, ]<sup>(])</sup>. I agree, too. --] (]) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::: Two notions I tend to agree with: if an article has a list of COs:
:::::#<nowiki>==Commanding officers==</nowiki> would probably be preferable to <nowiki>==List of commanding officers==</nowiki>
:::::#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. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Thanks, <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >]</span><sup><small>]</small></sup></span>. I agree with all of your points except the last sentance (grin), but I'm a bit biased. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Thank you, ]<sup>(])</sup> - you make an excellent point, with which I agree. --] (]) 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 ] 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 <nowiki>=== Commanding Officers ===</nowiki>, ''not'' <nowiki>=== List of Commanding Officers ===</nowiki>
** '''(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 &mdash; from-month from-year to to-month to-year", e.g., "* FADM '''Samuel J. Azzarreps''', USN &mdash; 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 "?".--] (]) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br>
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:
# 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 ], I'll reference in the main body of the article
# 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., <nowiki>=== Commanding Officers ===</nowiki> or <nowiki>=== List of Commanding Officers ===</nowiki>) and make them be of:
## Consistent name: <nowiki>=== Commanding Officers ===</nowiki>, ('''Done''' --] (]) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
## Consistent format: as described above, and,
## Consistent location: as described above. (''In progress'' --] (]) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
:::As I've been working through these articles, I've found some interesting things:
:::#There are scores of Ships articles (and I'm far from done - I estimate there will be hundreds) that contain lists of Commanding Officers
:::#Only a handful of the entries on these many, many lists point to a Wiki article for ''one'' of the COs; the rest of the entries are likely not of ]
:::#The placement of the articles has been "more or less" consistently ''near'' the bottom, but not always
:::#The format of the articles is wildly inconsistent
:::#Referring to the comments regarding use of "Jargon", or "Jargon-y" entrys (e.g., FADM), ''each'' of these articles is chock-full of naval ] (in fact, a brief review of these articles themselves, mostly Start-Class, but even at least one B-Class, have plenty of naval Jargon in them, including FADM and VADM
:::I'm slowly working on editing them, but my findings make me think:
:::* When I raised my question, I felt a small measure of ] (even though I'm not a newcomer to Wiki, but am to this project) in the responses - yet at least I ''asked'' the question, as I was editing an article, rather than just doing whatever I deemed appropriate, as it appears the authors of these many, many other articles did
:::*I was disappointed that no one ever addressed the question of "What to do with articles..." - I hope I'm doing the right thing - it is a lot of work
:::*I'm wondering how all these articles were authored, and assessed as "Start class" (and one is a B-Class), without the issue of the correctness of having lists of Commanding Officers, address so strongly in response to my question, without the issue being raised for those articles in their assessment.
:::Note: I raise the points in ] &mdash; I genuinely wonder if some improvement to the assessment process is not in order.
:::I still agree with, and remain committed to, the ] reached here, and am not questioning those conclusions
:::I do apologize if my comments are taken in other than good faith by anyone, especially the respondees who too the time to offer their commentary. I only note, again, I am a newcomer to this project, and so hope for some leeway as I have not yet determined the pecking order here (I do understand I'm at rock bottom - no problem!).
:::Cheers, --] (]) 15:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:: The reason for doing so is to quickly attain increased encyclopedic consitency among these articles.
# 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, --] (]) 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. — ] (])

::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 ].
::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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


:::See my comment, above. I agree. --] (]) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :Reminiscent, a little, of of a ]. A forerunner of an ] (Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon). _ ] (]) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


::Not convinced it is a Carley Float, as that article states they were mainly used on warships. This was on a cargo liner, the {{MV|Éridan|1928|2}}. Far too early to be connected with EPIRBs. ] (]) 07:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== US BB Class chronology messed up ==


== Naming of a Confederate ship ==
The preceded by/followed by links in the US BB class are messed up around the South Dakota class ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No they are not, we include the canceled classes. Therefore the progression is ''Colorado'', ''South Dakota'' (1920), ''North Carolina'', ''South Dakota'' (1939). -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Hearn's ''The Capture of New Orleans'' refers to a Confederate vessel named the ''R. J. Breckinridge''. ], in ''The Civil War in Louisiana'', refers to this vessel as simply the ''Breckinridge''. Chatelain's ''Defending the Arteries of Rebellion'' has ''General Breckinridge'', as does Browning's ''Lincoln{{'}}s Trident''. Gaines's ''Encyclopedia of Civil War Shipwrecks'' lists both names. I can find both names in the ''Official Records of the Union and Confederates Navies'' - and . "General Breckinridge" would seem to be a reference to ], while "R. J. Breckinridge" would be ] or ] if I had to guess. Can anyone find something that would shed some light on what this ship was actually named? ] <sub> '']''</sub> 03:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== A-Class review for ] now open ==
:{{re|Hog Farm}} I'd go with {{ship|Confederate ship|R. J. Breckinridge}}. It was common for names to be shortened. ] (]) 11:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


==Ship lists==
The ] for ] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to the ] and the various Lists of Liberty ships (e.g. ]) being rewritten into a format similar to the ], ], ] and the various lists of Empire ships (e.g. ])? ] (]) 11:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


:Go for it! ] (]) 23:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Two Ships FACs that need attention ==


::Mitchell & Sawyer's books ordered. {{smiley}} ] (]) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
There are two ship articles at ] that could benefit from additional input. The nomination for {{SS|Dakotan}} is ], and the nomination for {{SS|Washingtonian}} is ]. Both have been open for some time. — ] (]) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


== MOS question ==
==]==


So years ago, at a content review somewhere, I had been told that it is part of the MOS not to proceed the name of an invidual ship with "the". So, for instance, "the battleship ''Bismarck''" would be okay, but "the ''Bismarck''" wouldn't. Is this actually a part of the MOS somewhere? I'm having trouble finding it if it is. This has come up at ]. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 22:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I reassessed this to B class today. Does it have the potential to go to GA class? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


:I found it ]. ] '''(])''' 23:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Help required ==
:: This has been contentious. It is up to the article's author and is not part of the MOS. However, according to ], you should not start an article with the definite article "the" and the use of "the" before a ship's name is not preferred, but not outlawed. ] (]) 23:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Unless the ship's name starts with "]" of course. ] (]) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


==Dry cargo ship==
Bizzare question time, can anyone identify the ship in photo please? cheers muchly <sup>]]</sup> 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In 2010, User:Theoprakt changed ] from a stub article into a redirect to ]. I am not convinced that this is correct, as ] ships are also dry cargo ships. Last week, therefore, I changed the article from a redirect to a one-sentence statement. However, User:JalenBarks almost immediately reverted it, citing ] as a reason. If "dry cargo ship" is a synonym for "bulk carrier", it is news to me. Please may we have an intelligent article on dry cargo ships, instead of a redirect that, I contend, is a misdirection? ] (]) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:We have one - ]! ] (]) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. <sup>]]</sup> 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


== ] of ] ==
== Help requested ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
*]
<blockquote>'''Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
The list needs to be expanded based on the info from ]. There are a number pf PDFs from the IMO at http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Mind that the IMO info is for piracy world wide. Article is confined only to "Somali pirates".


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:54, 9 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ships and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconShips
WikiProject iconThis 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 ShipsShipsWikiProject icon
WikiProject Ships was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 June 2010.

Main Project Page
Things you can do
Information and sources
Article statistics
WP 1.0 bot39562

Mystery lifesaving apparatus

Can anyone identify this lifesaving appartus (middle picture, bottom row) please? Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminiscent, a little, of this design of a Carley Float. A forerunner of an EPIRB (Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon). _ Broichmore (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Not convinced it is a Carley Float, as that article states they were mainly used on warships. This was on a cargo liner, the Éridan. Far too early to be connected with EPIRBs. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Naming of a Confederate ship

Hearn's The Capture of New Orleans refers to a Confederate vessel named the R. J. Breckinridge. John D. Winters, in The Civil War in Louisiana, refers to this vessel as simply the Breckinridge. Chatelain's Defending the Arteries of Rebellion has General Breckinridge, as does Browning's Lincoln's Trident. Gaines's Encyclopedia of Civil War Shipwrecks lists both names. I can find both names in the Official Records of the Union and Confederates Navies - and . "General Breckinridge" would seem to be a reference to John C. Breckinridge, while "R. J. Breckinridge" would be Robert Jefferson Breckinridge Jr. or Robert Jefferson Breckinridge if I had to guess. Can anyone find something that would shed some light on what this ship was actually named? Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I'd go with Confederate ship R. J. Breckinridge. It was common for names to be shortened. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Ship lists

Any objections to the List of Victory ships and the various Lists of Liberty ships (e.g. List of Liberty ships (A-F)) being rewritten into a format similar to the List of Fort ships, List of Ocean ships, List of Park ships and the various lists of Empire ships (e.g. List of Empire ships (A))? Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Go for it! GGOTCC (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Mitchell & Sawyer's books ordered. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS question

So years ago, at a content review somewhere, I had been told that it is part of the MOS not to proceed the name of an invidual ship with "the". So, for instance, "the battleship Bismarck" would be okay, but "the Bismarck" wouldn't. Is this actually a part of the MOS somewhere? I'm having trouble finding it if it is. This has come up at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/CSS General Earl Van Dorn/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 22:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I found it Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Using_ship_names_in_articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This has been contentious. It is up to the article's author and is not part of the MOS. However, according to WP:NC-SHIPS, you should not start an article with the definite article "the" and the use of "the" before a ship's name is not preferred, but not outlawed. Llammakey (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless the ship's name starts with "The" of course. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Dry cargo ship

In 2010, User:Theoprakt changed Dry cargo ship from a stub article into a redirect to Bulk carrier. I am not convinced that this is correct, as Breakbulk cargo ships are also dry cargo ships. Last week, therefore, I changed the article from a redirect to a one-sentence statement. However, User:JalenBarks almost immediately reverted it, citing WP:NOTDICTIONARY as a reason. If "dry cargo ship" is a synonym for "bulk carrier", it is news to me. Please may we have an intelligent article on dry cargo ships, instead of a redirect that, I contend, is a misdirection? Motacilla (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

We have one - cargo ship! Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marlin-class submarine

Notice

The article Marlin-class submarine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esw01407 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: