Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ship index pages

Ship index pages like HMS Resolution, USS Enterprise have for some time been tagged with {{disambig}}. However, the development of a very strict format for disambiguation pages (see MoS:DP) means that there is a group of editors who are likely to apply this style blindly to all disambiguation pages, including ship index articles.

If you look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Some proposed wording for MoS:DP, I've tried to explain why this is unfortunate, but I'm not getting anywhere. So it may become necessary to change all these ship index articles so that they no longer use the template {{disambig}}, but something new.

Comments, please. Gdr 18:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) appears to be that ship index pages are not disambiguation pages and should not have the {{disambig}} template. I think this is unfortunate but it may be necessary. So I propose that we change {{disambig}} to some new template, say {{shipindex}}. (I don't think it's necessary to say anything so it should start out blank but it will be useful to be able to find ship index articles using Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Shipindex, and if there's a problem we can always add some text to it.

Again, comments? If there are no objections I'll start on the template switch at the weekend using User:Gdrbot. Gdr 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ship index pages are not true disambiguation pages in the strictest sensea, and the new template isn't a bad idea. Joshbaumgartner 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking the disambig template off our index pages does seem like the most robust resolution of this odd dispute. Maybe someone can set a bot to change all the USS and RN pages in one swell foop? (Oh, you already thought of that.)

—wwoods 02:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur with your plan. I think we can put something in the {{shipindex}} template to indicate that one can disambig the link, if that makes sense. Jinian 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I switched over all the Royal Navy and United States Navy ship index articles to use {{shipindex}}, about 1,200 articles in all. I put the USN pages in Category:United States Navy ship names. Gdr 18:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I undid the Von Steuben since that includes the Prussian officer as well. And I added some content to "shipindex", just a reword of the disambig template.GraemeLeggett 12:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I switched about 82 ship index pages that the Gdrbot missed. What about USGC cutters? There are only 3, but the template says "navy". I don't want to step on any toes. There are other interesting comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Ship index pages regarding the effectiveness of this latest change. Chris the speller 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the phrase, "in a navy". —wwoods 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anchors aweigh! I changed the three (cutter) ship index pages. Of course, "navy" as in "vessels for sea warfare and defense" probably covered it anyway. I just wanted to check. Chris the speller 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

List of LSTs

Somebody has nominated the List of LSTs on AFD. I would appreciate it if those who feel they can would stop deletion of the list by voting for keeping it. David Newton 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template idea for DANFS references

It occurred to me while reviewing some of the "source citing" discussion that it might be useful to have the reference sections of DANFS-based articles include a direct link back to the original text that is online at history.navy.mil these days. A template set up like {{FishBase family}} would make it easy to include both URL and printable information. I'm personally on an image drive, so won't have time to work on such a template, but thought I'd throw out the idea. Stan 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Color in the Ship table Template

In the course of the Template:Ship table changes lately being made due to WP:AUM concerns, I added an option to set the color of the crossbars in the template display. It was used to change the crossbar color to gray on the Confederate ship tables. (Its not operative at present, but could be). It's easily implemented, and can be done in an unobtrusive way. I wanted to find what other peoples views were on this subject.

That being said, most people's response is "whats wrong with blue?". Well, its called "Yankee blue" down south (USA) and "bluecoats" is a venomous term for Union soldiers. People were killed over the color trousers they wore for years after the war was over. Its like saying "British, Irish, what's the difference?". To me, an American, there's not much difference, they all have a funny accent and poor spelling. But to someone from England or Ireland, there is one huge hell of a difference, and I have come to appreciate that. Please, appreciate that there is one huge hell of a difference between blue and gray to a Civil War buff. PAR 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you for real? —A damn yankee (Talk) 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. PAR 02:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As a British person I find the idea of this somewhat anachronistic, but it would cause some people concern. Are any of the other members of the WikiProject from the former CSA, and if so what are your opinions on the matter? The main question we have to answer is about NPOV so far as I can see. PAR seems to find the use of the dark blue that has been the rule of the WikiProject's ship tables for several years to be expressing a POV. On the other hand I don't see how using a grey colour for CSN ships would be any less POV-infested. I would also point out that templates and tables like this are supposed to identify an article and, one might say, give it the branding of the WikiProject responsible for creating the article. I don't see what's really wrong with our current brand. David Newton 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this chap above means "colour", right ? Rama 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

ARRGGHH I'm surrounded! I am a newcomer to this project and, prior to this, I have not been aware of this community of interested people, so please forgive me if I act without knowledge of past history. David Newton has put it succinctly, yes, my point is that blue is POV for civil war ships for someone who still responds emotionally to the American Civil War (I do not, but I have friends who do, on both sides.) But further, its inappropriate, in a sense. It's like saying "For the War of the Roses article, lets just use one rose to describe the two badges, because, after all, they are the same, aren't they?. To worry about the color is a bit anachronistic." I am not familiar with the need for the color to identify an article, so I can't comment on that with any authority. PAR 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Anaconda Plan in action.:-) Seriously, that war's been over for quite a while. I'm a Yankee myself, but I have the impression that Southerners have been proudly wearing "Navy Blue" (and on formal occasions, "Army Blue") for more than a century.

—wwoods 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Regarding the British Civil War (War of the Roses), I am sure that many decendants of the house of Lancaster have proudly fought side by side with the descendants of the house of York. That is no reason to describe the badge of both houses using the same color rose. I've had this discussion with other people before, and I seem to be systematically unable to communicate two things, for which I apologize:

• The blue and the gray are not just random colors in the American Civil War, any more than the white and the red were just random colors in the War of the Roses. They are colors which are tightly and objectively tied to the individual combatants. I don't wish the badges of the combatants in the War of the Roses to be the same color, nor do I want Union blue to be associated with the Confederacy. (e.g. - Google "the blue and the gray")
• I say this having no emotional ties to the houses of Lancaster, York, the political American north, or the political south. (I do have friends with emotional ties on both sides which is what made me aware of the difference.) I don't mean for my emotional illustrations of the differences to imply that I am a Confederate sympathizer still fighting the war, just to emphasize that they exist, and for a reason. The thing that got me involved here is that an ancestor of mine served aboard the USS General Price, to which I have contributed, so if I did have any ancient allegiance, it would be to the north.

That said, shouldn't we be discussing whether the addition of color to the template is appropriate? I think I have an objective reason for making the Confederate templates gray, and David Newton has an objective reason not to, but I don't know how to balance the two, nor if those are the only considerations. PAR 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ship portal

I was wondering if there is a ship portal,now that these portals are becoming more common it would be a good way to attrack new people to this poject.It would also give people a nice overview.(The transport portal currently already links to cars/trains/aviation portals. --213.224.243.109 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject Ships.

What do you think? To add it to your user page, type "{{User ships}}" -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Inserting an image

Many ship image pages (see example) contain: (1) the statement "This image is a temporary placeholder for articles(mostly those utilizing the table from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables) which still need a picture to illustrate them. You can help by uploading an image for any of the articles listed below under 'File links'"; followed by (2) much File History and File Links that seem irrelevant once an image is inserted. In inserting an image, one may therefore delete all that, right? -- Mccomb 12:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Commisioned?

We have an article on the X-1 Submarine, which was moved from USS X-1 on the grounds that she apparently wasn't commisioned. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships only refers to her being "placed in service" [1]. We've had an email from an ex-crewmember, who referred to her as a commissioned sub; does anyone know for sure one way or the other? Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The ex-crewmember is almost certainly mistaken. Every Navy site refers to her as having been "placed in service" and none of them give her the "USS" prefix, including both DANFS and the NVR. Contrary-wise, every site that mentions her "commissioning" or tacks "USS" on is an unofficial, amateur site. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll pass that on if he gets back in touch. Is there a standard printed source other than the DANFS, like Colledge is for the RN, incidentally? Shimgray | talk | 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone willing to help improve Submarine?

I thought this might be the place with people with knowledge on the subject so if anyone can help take a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Submarine#Plans_to_improve_the_article and help him out.

This is a pretty top level article so it might as well be the finest on wikipedia --Technosphere83 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How Do I ...

I've posted articles on four post-WWII Navy ships, and I'm interested in posting some more. So far I've just modeled the articles on a few other ship articles. But you guys seem to have some standards, maybe some way to automate the table, etc. How do I find out about this stuff?

BTW, it took me a while to figure out what the blue Navy jack image is. It loses a lot by being printed on the blue background. Maybe it needs a white border, as someone suggested for one of the UK jacks. Lou Sander 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides the templates on the main page, there are no commonly used standarts. Changing an image would require some discussion to make sure nobody has specific ideas about its color. CP/M

Formatting for carriers

A couple of monthes ago someone rewrote a large chunk of the history for the carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) into a bullet form list of her accomplishments. Now I see the same thing has ben done to the carrier USS Intrepid (CV-11). I was under the impression that the history section for ships should be written in paragraph form and not in bullets. Is this a new layout for the carriers, or is this something that should be reverted when spotted? TomStar81 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper hierarchy for naval categories?

What is the proper hierarchy for including naval subcategories? Would it be articles or subcategories? For example, looking at Category:Destroyer classes, almost all of the ships classes have both an article and a subcategory (such as the Arleigh Burke class destroyer article and Category:Arleigh Burke class destroyers), however in some cases the article is a member of Category:Destroyer classes while in other cases it is the subcategory. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, every class gets a category, unless the ship is a one-off. The class article ought to go into Category:Ship classes or the appropriate subcategory, and also putting it in the class category gives you a link between the article and category pages. Put something so it'll sort to the top of the list on the category page, e.g. [[Category:Arleigh Burke class destroyers|*]]

—wwoods 08:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Halifax Frigates

How would I go about adding text about the new upgrades and upgrade programs (FELEX, RUP, MHP, SIRIUS, etc.) Jmvolc 01:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

These are the Canadian Halifax class frigates? Articles on the ships already exist, so just go to them and edit them. Or you can add an article by creating a link to it on any page, e.g. SIRIUS program, then previewing the page and clicking through to start that article.

—wwoods 08:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of Category:Ship classes

Hey guys,

I've been working on cleaning up Category:Ship classes. Kralizec! noticed what I was up to and suggested that I post about it here, since you guys might have suggestions or might offer some assistance. Here's my game plan:

1. Move articles from Category:Ship classes to sub-categories based on the type of class (battleship, cruiser, etc). This is essentially complete, and it was a bear. I created sub-categories Amphibious assault ship, Coastal defense ship, Fast attack craft, Ferry, Mine warfare, and Patrol vessel. I moved everything that fit into one of the above or pre-existing categories off of Category:Ship classes. What remains would go into such a small category that I don't want to bother with it now. Some classes fit into more than one category and so I listed them in each.
2. On the sub-category pages, ensure that the ship class categories are listed (example Category:Agano class cruisers under Category:Cruiser classes), ensure that ship class main articles (example Agano class cruiser under Category:Agano class cruisers) are listed under their categories, and remove ship class main articles from the sub-category pages. See Category:Aircraft carrier classes and Category:Battleship classes to see what the end product looks like. I may not do this for ships smaller than Cruisers, but then again I may.
3. Find orphans. For example, Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi was unique, but it should still be find-able under Category:Aircraft carrier classes. I created a cat for the Akagi class, which may be a no-no since there's currently just one article, but it fits in better in Category:Aircraft carrier classes now and I think one could write additional articles or categorize other things under Akagi.

I would appreciate any help or suggestions with the above tasks. I think the end result is really good, and I previously felt that Category:Ship classes was haphazard and useless. TomTheHand 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Over the years there have been quite a few specialized amphibious ships (and classes). Many were developed during WWII, and most of these have been replaced by new ship types as thinking about amphibious warfare has changed. The complexity is probably well within the capability of Wikipedia to explain. I've got a lot of information about the various kinds of ships, but I'm not at all knowledgeable about how to go about categorizing things on Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind teaming up with someone on a project for classifying amphibious ships. Lou Sander 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I lumped all amphibious ships into one category, Category:Amphibious assault ship classes, but I could definitely see the need for sub-categorization. Wasp is pretty darn different from an LST. If you need a quick categorization tutorial, leave a message on my talk or check out Wikipedia:Category. TomTheHand 17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, Why are you going ahead and making changes that we have yet to reach consensus on? Namely, you've begun removing the ship class articles from the Category:Fooship classes and instead putting them in the Category:Fooship. A ship class is not a ship and shouldn't be in that category. Jinian 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rationalizing ship categories

I'd like to see if we can do some serious cleanup of ship categories. We should figure out specifically what each category should contain and then make sure they contain all the information they're supposed to.

One thing that's been bothering me is redundancy. For example, Category:Cruisers of the United States has a sub-category called Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy. That seems silly to me. I'd like to propose this:

1. The (ship type) of (country) categories should contain all the ship class categories for that country (example Category:Baltimore class cruisers), instead of having them under a sub-category like Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy.
2. The (ship type) of (country) categories should also contain sub-categories for time periods, like Category:World War I cruisers of the United States, and these sub-categories should be listed at the top under * or space.
3. The (time period) (ship type) of (country) categories should contain all ship class categories for which any ship of that class served during the relevant time period.
4. None of the above categories should contain direct links to ship classes or ships. They should contain the ship class categories, which contain that information.

Does this sound alright? If so, I'll get started on it. I could also possibly just do one category, like Category:Cruisers of the United States, so you guys could look at it and give me feedback before I go further. TomTheHand 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds good to me, as far as I could follow it. (I'm new here, and Wikipedia categories are something of a mystery to me.) I like the idea of having different categories for ships of different countries. Not only does that make good sense, but that's how Jane's Fighting Ships is organized. It might be good to look at a recent copy of Jane's to see how their categories are further broken down. (After all, Jane's has a LOT of experience with this stuff.)

The categories by age sounds good, too, but it has its limitations, since ships have a life span that often exceeds the length of an "era." I don't know if there were any WWI ships still in commission at the start of WWII, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were. And I know that many ships that were built during WWII served into the 1970's, though they are probably all gone by now. To me, there is a definite break between the ships that were decommissioned before WWII and those that served in WWII. There may also be a break after Vietnam, but it's not a clear one in my eyes.

Another problematic category-like thing is the "classes" of U.S. Navy ships, e.g. Fletcher-class destroyers. Information about the class a ship belonged to wasn't always consistent, and it causes some troubles even today, especially for those old WWII ships. Lou Sander 18:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One really nice thing about Wikipedia categories is that it's possible to belong to more than one of them. Category:New York class battleships would go under both Category:World War I battleships of the United States and Category:World War II battleships of the United States, as well as Category:Battleships_of_the_United_States, according to my proposal. Similarly, USS Galveston (CLG-3) can belong to both Category:Cleveland class cruisers, which she was originally, and Category:Galveston class cruisers, which she was considered the lead ship of after being rebuilt into a missile cruiser. TomTheHand 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding points 1 and 2 above, a lot of the existing category structure was created in 2005 by Joshbaumgartner via some rather well designed and useful templates. As an example, {{cathead wwi cruisers of the|country}} was used to create Category:World War I cruisers of the United Kingdom, Category:World War I cruisers of the United States, etc. Likewise, {{cathead wwii battleships of|county}} was used to create Category:World War II battleships of Germany, Category:World War II battleships of the Soviet Union, etc. Hopefully this should make the cleanup a little easier. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. I should learn more about templates to save myself some unnecessary typing. Is there a list of all the WikiProject Ships templates and how they're intended to be used? TomTheHand 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to see more discussion on this topic. The categories continue to be a mess, as noted 6 months ago. Here are my thoughts:

1. Never cared for the [ship type] of [county] construct. Few countries have Cruisers and Aircraft carriers outside of a military organization. US cruisers are USN cruisers - completely. I've never seen the good argument for making a distinction between warships that belong to a country and warships that belong to a country's navy. All that said, I don't feel strongly about it being [ship type] of [country's navy] and agree that having a subcat to Category:Cruisers of the United States that is Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy is just plain silly.

3. I continue to strongly disagree with this recommendation. This move puts Bush -- a ship that hasn't even been launched -- in the Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of the United States by virtue of her being a Nimitz-class carrier. Yuck. How confusing is that to the average reader? Other ships that were sunk in WWII (numerous destroyers) might end up in a Cold War category as well, since destroyer classes were huge and many lived into the '80s.

I've noticed someone (Kralizec!) has already started moving ship class articles out of the very useful Category:Ship classes and placing them into the less useful specific class categories. Strongly disagree with this move. The Category:Ship classes is useful and articles about a ship class need not be in a category for the ships of that class. (Hope that makes sense).

Finally, please wait until we have consensus (more than 3 people) before changing anything else. We have enough problems with the cats as they are. Thanks. And thanks again for addressing this issue. Jinian 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jinian on points 1 and 3. In fact, I agree to the point where I can't think of anything else to say :) Emoscopes ^Talk 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

None of our categorization changes are new, and all of the guidelines we are following have existed as part of the Ships WikiProject since August 2004. All we are doing is consistently implementing what has been in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships#Categorization for nearly two years. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. The referenced categorization guidance isn't two years old. Some of that is much younger. And the placement of an article about a ship class isn't even covered. (I'll bow to the suggestion that a Category:Battleship classes is more useful then Category:Ship classes, but maintain that a ship class article is not a ship article and therefore belongs in the Category:Fooship classes.) And the suggestion that an entire class of ships should be placed in an era category even if one of the ships is from that era is not included in the guidance. Although people have done it -- and why I'm familiar with the problems it would raise. Thanks. Jinian 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the referenced categorization guidance really is just about two years old. If you compare the 17 August 2004 revision with the current one [2], you will see that the categorization section (line 98 of the old revision and line 142 of the current) has remained virtually unchanged for the past 654 days. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Some responses to concerns that were brought up:

1. I believe that (ship type) of (country) is more useful than (ship type) of (navy). A country that has never had a battleship simply won't have a Battleships of (x) category for it, so I don't see that as being a problem. I like country more than navy because to me, United Kingdom is more useful than Royal Navy.

3. I apologize, but I was unaware that there was previous discussion on this issue. I haven't made any changes to this because I wanted to seek consensus first. I see where you're coming from and I can agree that it could be a bad idea to simply do things by class. It's far more important to me that we come up with a definite plan and implement it (because right now things are an awful mess) than it is that we follow my plan. If the consensus is that (time period) (ship type) of (country) should contain individual ships and NOT classes then I will work to implement that.

In reference to depopulating Category:Ship classes (which I was responsible for), I wholeheartedly disagree that that category was more useful than specific categories for types of ship. It is NOT useful to have a category that lumps everything from Auto Express 86 Class, a ferry, to Yamato class battleship. Most of the specific type categories already existed, so I started out simply sorting ships into those categories, and I created more in order to continue the organization. It is very useful for someone to be able to look at all battleship or aircraft carrier classes. It's significantly less useful for someone to be able to look at every class of ship ever in a single list spanning several pages. In cases where a ship's classification is debatable, like the Alaska class cruiser, it's a simple matter to list it under both battlecruisers and cruisers so that anyone who is traversing the ship class categories can easily find it. TomTheHand 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I'm fine with #1. Don't particularly care for it, but don't feel strongly enough to actually dissent. Concur that a plan that everyone follows is important. So, to some extent, we need to make the plan consistent and rational so that random authors (who won't read the guidance or plan) will be able to discern the structure. Obviously, I'd like to see individual ships in eras, but also recognize that in some cases entire classes can go into an era (i.e., some entire destroyer classes were built during and decommisioned immediately after WWII). As I just noted above, I'm good with Category:Fooship classes.

Categories for one-off/unique/single ship designs

Guys, thanks for all the input. In a day or two I'll post my newest plan for input, before I start on anything. There's also another issue I'd like to address. I've been talking to GraemeLeggett about one-off ships and single ship classes. I believe that these ships should be accessible under Category:Ship classes, but my initial solution (placing them in a one-article category) was probably a bad idea. Instead we're thinking that we need a category for one-off ships, with sub-categories for one-off battleships, one-off aircraft carriers, etc. Any objections to this? Also, what should it be called? "Unique ships" sounds too positive, while "One-off ships" might be negative. "Single ship designs" sounds alright for a top category, but I think "Single battleship designs" and "Single ship battleship designs" both sound odd. Opinions? TomTheHand 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[Repeating what others have said]

I think war categories should be for specific ships, though articles on classes particularly associated with a war could also go in.

There are thousands of ships which don't really have classes, in the sense of 'common desigh to which they were all built, more-or-less'. They do have types, e.g. sloop, steamship, yacht, etc. 'Unique design Xships'?

—wwoods 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the word "unique" because of its implication of superiority but if there is consensus to use "unique" I'll implement it. I prefer "one-off" myself. TomTheHand 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Single ship designs probably sound best, as "unique" implies being special and looks like unique design (not ship). One-off sounds a bit worse, but still more correct than unique. "Single battleships designs" sounds OK for me. CP/M 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 'unique' implies 'superior' -- or why didn't they make more of them? Though one problem with the word is that a ship may be the only one of its class in one navy, but not the only one of its class. Do we really need a class or class-equivalent for every ship? Why not just categorize them by their type, rather than lumping Alligator, Holland, Dolphin, Dolphin, Albacore, Nautilus, Seawolf, Triton, Halibut, Tullibee, Narwhal, Glenard P. Lipscomb, and X-1 all together in a sub-category of United States Navy submarines?

—wwoods 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that unique/one-off designs of ships shouldn't be implied to be superior, but I think the word "unique" tends to imply "specialness" as well as "singularness." That's why I don't feel that "unique" is the word we want to use. We want to give a neutral impression of these ship designs and not make people think either "extra-special" or "wow, they only built one, it must be crap!" TomTheHand 11:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this proposal. The premise is that placing (one-ship classes) in a one-article category (is) probably a bad idea. I have read the discussion carefully, and I still don't understand why. If we don't envisage categories for classes containing n ships, where n = 2, 3 , etc, why do we need a special category for the case n=1? Moreover, I don't see where this category is going to fit in under the Ship classes category. In the discussion on Graeme Leggett's user page, Tom said that it makes Category:Battleship classes look prettier if everything's in categories and makes it easier to find things there. Even though Agincourt was a one-off, I still feel she should be able to be found under Battleship classes. I agree. But if all one-ship classes are hived off into a seperate sub-category, won't this have the opposite effect? I am not the world's expert on categories, so I would be grateful if someone with more experience could help me out. Regards, John Moore 309 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to convince you one way or the other, because I'm barely on the side of a "Unique ships" category myself. It seems to me that a category which can only ever contain one article might not be a proper use of Wikipedia categories, which are supposed to be used to group similar articles. I also think such a category would have to constantly be defended against deletion/merging. See an example of a class category that currently contains just one article, but has the potential for four more, being proposed for deletion here. As for where the "Unique" category fits, see Category:Aircraft carrier classes. You'll see at the top of the category Category:Unique aircraft carriers, which should theoretically allow people to easily find aircraft carriers that aren't in a class.

On the other hand, I'm the one who originally went around placing many of these single-ship articles into single-ship categories myself (I since listed them for deletion after moving them to Unique ships), so I certainly understand where you're coming from there. TomTheHand 11:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I take your point about the risk of one-ship categories being listed for deletion by over-zealous editors. A surprising number of people don't seem to realise realise that 1 is a number (so is zero, for that matter). But to pick up on my previous post, I don't think this enough reason for us to pre-emptively delete them all ourselves. What I suggest is this: by all means carry on with the Unique Ships category (although I would much prefer Warships of unique design), but please don't list any more single-ship categories for deletion (and also vote against any existing or future VfDs). Ideally, ships of unique design should belong to both the Unique ships/Warships of unique design categories and their class category. Is is possible to recover the deleted categories?

Thanks also for the tip about the outrageous Freccia VfD (where do these people find the time?) - I have taken the chance to register my vote. I had a similar experience myself recently when an disambiguation page which I had created was "helpfully" changed to a redirect. Regards, John Moore 309 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The deleted categories could be re-created if consensus is to do so. I'd wait for some other WP Ships folks to weigh in before doing it, though. I'm pretty sure some people are actually opposed to having one-article categories for single-ship classes. In reference to a rename of the cat, —wwoods has expressed a similar desire, though for "Unique designs" rather than "Unique ships." If we agree on a new name, changing it will be pretty easy.

I don't have a preference on either of the above issues (single article cats, and the rename of Unique ships). TomTheHand 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think I have had my say, so I will stand off from this debate for a few days to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Thanks for your help, Tom. Regards, John Moore 309 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote

I think we need to have a vote on this so that I can go ahead and implement it. Please sign your name under the option you favor.

Unique ships

One-off ships

• TomTheHand 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Single ship designs

Wikipedia is not a democracy. You should be looking for consensus; not trying to speed to an implementation. Jinian 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a vote for single ship designs or are you just being argumentative? I AM looking for consensus here. There have been few contributions to the discussion above, so I'm attempting to make it easier for people to give their input on the issue.TomTheHand 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give people a bit more time. Or at least give the one guy you disagree with a chance to respond to you before rushing to a "vote" -- a process that, in general, is not implemented here. I just don't understand your urgency. Jinian 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "in 48 hours I'm doing whatever the majority votes for." I'm trying to make it easier for people to toss in their two cents, and there's no reason to interpret this as a rush. I don't understand why you would rather criticize my process than offer an opinion. TomTheHand 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the subject. Seems a minor issue to me. However, I did read your "go ahead and implement" as a desire to just take a poll rather than to discuss. I'm in favor of discussion, as a general rule. If pressed, I'd say "unique" is a fine word and much better than phrase "one-off". But only if pressed. Jinian 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unique" is a perfectly acceptable english word in common usage, which means that only one of the item in question, be it a ship or whatever, existed. The word contains no presumption of superiority, or indeed of inferiority, although for the record many unique warships have over the years failed to be repeated because of gross and obvious inferiority. The expression "one-off" is an ugly neologism for which the language has no current need.--Anthony.bradbury 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for 'unique' - it means what it says - it appears that we tend to 'tire' of words, over a period and have to invent new words or phrases (that often don't quite 'do it') - I loathe 'one-off'! Nothing like being definite - eh? :-) - Ballista 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that 'unique' is the way to go. When I get some time to start this project, that's what I'll do. I do have to say that you're incorrect about "unique" having no presumption of superiority. In its literal sense, you're correct that it simply means that there's only one of the object in question. However, check dictionary.com]. You'll find that "unique" is sometimes used to mean "unusual", "extraordinary", or "unparalleled", which is not the impression we want to give. I'm surprised that you've never heard "unique" used to mean "exceptional." Maybe it's an American thing. You also might like to try Googling "unique" and seeing how often it's used to imply rarity and exclusivity, rather than being used for its literal definition. "One-off" dates back to the 1930s, so it hardly seems like a neologism to me. It's newer than "neologism" but older than, for example, "genocide." TomTheHand 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an American thing. You may see that as a good thing or a bad thing, and there are clear differences between English and American usages. I don't think that either can be argued to be "right". They're just different.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that the American way was "right." I was just trying to say that many readers will look at the category name from an American perspective and that has to be taken into account. TomTheHand 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Eras for Ships

Considering U.S. Warships (and maybe those of other nations), how about

• Pre-WWII
• WWII
• Post-WWII
• Contemporary

Pre-WWII could be anything built before the war (a long history from sail to steam, of interest to those who like "ancient" history)

WWII could be anything that served in WWII, including those that are also Pre-WWII (a large category, because there were large navies then. IMHO, WWII is a time of demarcation in the history of warships)

Post-WWII would not include those that were decommissioned right after the war, but would include everyting else, including contemporary ships and those that had a post-war history that extended to Korea and after...most were gone by 1970 or so. (of interest to those to whom WWII is "ancient" history.)

Contemporary could be anything now afloat (of interest to those who don't care much about history)

Some ships would be in two categories, but none or almost none would be in three. There might be a related category to cover the historical ships that are now afloat next to piers. Lou Sander 12:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pre-WWII" seems overbroad. For USN ships, it'd make sense to break out WWI and the Civil War, and the early wars (Revolution–1812). For RN ships, WWI and Napoleonic Wars? For others, 'Age of Sail' vs. 'Age of Steam'? I suppose we won't get many articles on specific ships from pre-Renaissance history.

—wwoods 17:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, provided that there are enough ships from WWI and before that the early categories will have some members. But I guess even with zero or a few members, a category would serve as an invitation to potential posters to fill it up.

Maybe the earliest categories could be Pre-Civil-War, Civil War to WWI, and WWI to WWII, with a little more thought maybe going into the actual names.

The dividing lines would then be the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, with a separate category for active/contemporary ships. Ships whose time in service overlapped one of the dividing lines would appear in both categories. I don't think that the sail/steam divide is worth categorizing, since it happened over a fairly long period (I think), and since it's obvious for each ship what category it falls into. Though maybe a category for sailing ships wouldn't be bad, since those ships are of interest to some people. I don't think there's a need for a steam ships category, though maybe there ought to be one for nuclear-powered ships.

Bottom line would be categorizing each Navy ship by its presence in one or two eras (separated by the three big wars), with additional categories for sail and nuclear, and maybe one for present-day "museum ships." So USS Constitution would be in the categories for pre-Civil war, sail, and museum ships. (BTW there is an article on List of museum ships. Being a newbie, I don't know how that fits with categories, etc.) Lou Sander 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the way we're currently using "era" cats is to note participants in particular events, not with the intention of having all ships belong to at least one era. For example, we currently don't have a cat for interwar ships, so if a ship was built in 1920 and served until 1935 she would not fit into one of the "era" cats. I'm personally fine with this and it would be a change of direction to develop a system of era cats with no holes. If consensus is to change direction in that way, that's fine, but I'm personally satisfied with the current system.

If we do decide to come up with era cats with no holes, we should have cats that are not overly ethnocentric. I believe that describing things in relation to the American Civil War is too ethnocentric. It's fine if we just want to categorize ships that participated in the American Civil War, but a bad idea if we want every ship to fit into "Pre-Civil-War, Civil War to WWI, and WWI to WWII." A better idea might be to go with years, like "1850 through 1918," "1919 through 1945," "1945 through 1991," etc.

Again, though, I would prefer to categorize ships by their participation in important events. Perhaps another set of categories could be put together for build date. Constitution would then belong to "Ships of the War of 1812" and "Ships commissioned 1751-1800". USS Texas (BB-35) would belong to World War I battleships of the US, World War II battleships of the US, and Ships commissioned 1901-1925. TomTheHand 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having "era" simply deal with participation in major events, like World War II, and having a separate category for "Ships by commission date." What do others think about this idea? TomTheHand 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea.

I can say from recent closely related personal experience that this stuff is NOT easy to deal with. My experience is in categorizing and otherwise dealing with men who served aboard the USS Rankin. Maybe describing it will help here. The ship was in commission between 1945-1947 and 1952-1971. There were about 3,500 people who served during those periods, and we wanted a way to clump together the guys who served together. (That lets people find each other without having to search all 3,500.) For each man, we have a pretty good idea of the year he came aboard and the year he left (sort of analogous to commissioning and decommissioning dates). Our first pass was to classify each man by the year he came aboard. That was OK, but since people are on board for periods ranging from a few months to five or more years, it wasn't very precise. It DID serve a purpose, though.

As we got better at categorization, we ended up using a macro in Access that looks at the year each guy came aboard and the year he left. If we're looking for Joe Smith's shipmates, the macro identifies the years he was aboard, then returns the names of everybody who was aboard during any of those years. It's pretty good, but not perfect: if you left the ship in July 1945 and another guy came aboard in August 1945, our list shows both of you as 1945 guys, even though you weren't aboard together. We've sent lists like this to 500+ people, and nobody has complained about the imperfection.

Thinking about the "ship era question" in the context of all the above, I'm thinking that the commissioning date might be a very important item. Maybe there could be lists of ships commissioned by year, or maybe by decade, or maybe by decade with yearly lists for the WWII era, when huge numbers were commissioned.

I'm also thinking that categorizing ships by the major events they participated in (usually wars) is probably the most practical thing to do. Don't forget that some ships participated in more than one war.

I wouldn't worry much about the ethnocentric thing. It would be irrelevant for categories of U.S. warships, and categories that include ships of all nations would REALLY get unwieldy, IMHO.

If U.S. ships are categorized by major events, I like these categories:

Revolutionary War

War of 1812

Civil War

WWI

WWII

Korean War

Vietnam War

Contemporary (to show the ships that are active now)

There could possibly be categories (and maybe there are already) for major events that involved a lot of ships: Surrender in Tokyo Bay and Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Lou Sander 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to prod this discussion a bit, because I think working on the eras could be my next project after taking care of classes. There are two issues I'd like to discuss here.

1. Should eras be structured so that every ship fits into one? For example, right now there is no era coverage between WWI and WWII, so a ship that was built in 1920 and decommissioned in 1935 would not fit into an era. There are a couple of possible solutions to this, as I see it.
   1. Eras should not try to cover every year, but should rather cover participation in major events like wars. We could possibly add another set of categories to deal with commission date, which would cover all years. This is the solution that I favor, because I think finding participants in particular wars is valuable.
   2. Eras should be restructured to cover every year, so that every ship will fit into one.
2. The second issue is the listing of class categories in eras. As Jinian said above, listing Nimitz class aircraft carrier under Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of the United States implies that USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) was involved in the Cold War, when in fact she was laid down in 2003 and is still under construction. I agree that this is a bad thing. However, I think the era categories will be messy if they just contain all the ships. I really don't have a proposal for this that I'm confident in. Part of me wants to list categories for cleanliness, but part of me hates the inaccuracy that would cause. I certainly don't want to implement crazy cats like Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers of the Cold War. So what's the lesser of two evils? In the below discussion, Jinian made an excellent point: if only the cat is listed, someone who's reading about USS Nimitz (CVN-68) and who wants to learn about other Cold War carriers couldn't jump directly to the appropriate category. They would have to know that they could jump to Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers, from which they could find the Cold War cat. TomTheHand 13:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I just posted some related stuff a few paragraphs above this one. On your questions, I'm now thinking that it might be more trouble than it's worth to have eras that encompass every ship. Having categories for the wars plus something about commissioning dates would probably be easier and just as useful.

I think that ship classes should be disconnected from eras. The classes are numerous and sometimes fuzzy, and trying to deal with their time lines might be a nightmare. If there is an article for a given class, it might be good to list the ships of the class, and to include their commissioning years in the article. Or maybe the article could just say the ships were commissioned between 19xx and 19yy. Lou Sander 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Listing ships by era works fine so long as you are considering ships of only a single Nationality. But it would not, I think, be reasonable to attempt to categorise British Royal Naval ships as, for example, pre- and post-Civil war; nor United States ships as Victorian or Napoleonic; nor Russian ships in relation to the War of 1812. Could not a reasonable classification be devised relating to the level of technology employed in the ships, which would relate to all nations in that all have passed through the same technological phases of warship construction?--Anthony.bradbury 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's useful to have categories for "Ships of the War of 1812" or "Ships of the American Civil War", but I agree completely that you would only want to include ships of the nations involved.

The problem with using level of technology is the time it takes for technology to be adopted. It took a long time for steam to supplant sail, for example. I think that classification by technology could usefully supplement other categories, but I don't think it's able to become the ultimate solution to ship classification. Some possible classifications might be steam vs. sail, pre-Dreadnought and post-Dreadnought, and metal-hulled vs. wooden-hulled. TomTheHand 23:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I don't think that argument addresses my point; and by the way, sail/steam, metal/wood, pre/post dreadnought are some technological distinctions I had in mind. Whether a particular technology is adopted quickly or slowly, and whether a neighbouring country is ahead or behind, does not affect the level of technology used in any given ship. A sailing line-of-battle ship launched in the broadside ironclad era is still a sailing line-of-battle ship. What I am really trying to find my way to, with I accept limited success, is a way to classify ships without reference to specific date ranges, given that different countries, especially in the nineteenth and very early twentieth centuries, operated ships that were contemporaries by calendar but very different in level of technology.

Perhaps I'm just being difficult and hunting the impossible; feel free to say so.--Anthony.bradbury 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think classification by technology is a good idea, and I think sail/steam, metal/wood, and pre/post-Dreadnought would be useful categories. I was just trying to say that classification by technology has both disadvantages and advantages over classification by date, and we should probably use both. TomTheHand 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've listed as many of the inappropriate "Victorian era" categories as I could find for deletion here. Please weigh in with your opinions. I plan to add the other inappropriate Victorian era categories later, so keep an eye out. TomTheHand 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "eras" as a permanent answer, and neither are the wars that some countries have fought. The history of peace matters too! While I appreciate the difference in longevity between aircraft and ships, the categorization problem is similar: and the current answer with military aircraft seems to be the neutral POV of using the decades in service. If single- decades are too much work for now, then I'd feel that using double-decades (not quarter centuries) would be heading in a good direction. Meanwhile can we get rid of the categories that say "Modern", like Category:Modern destroyers which actually has articles about 1970s ships. --Mereda 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't see "eras" as being the be-all and end-all of categorization, I think it's hard to argue that a category listing ships that participated in World War II isn't useful. The "Modern" category is used to indicate ships which are currently in service; I'd be fine with a reasonable rename, but we should not get rid of it. I do plan to eventually categorize by commission date, but for now I'm just categorizing by wars and major events in which the ship has participated. Commission date will come in a future pass.TomTheHand 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about making changes in reasonable steps & good luck! The main issue I have here is with the word/concept "modern" as part of a category name. I'd have no problem with "current", "in service" or synonyms, because the concepts are objective and the boundary is clear. As we look round navies of the world, some of them with ships recycled from major navies, what's the meaning of "modern"?? As a first step, I'd suggest the Project puts a sentence of text on category pages like that to say what they include. --Mereda 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also thought that "current" would be the best way to go. Point taken about putting a sentence on each category page; as I run into "modern" categories I will add a sentence to them describing their purpose. Does anyone else have thoughts on a rename of the "modern" categories?

Another concern that I have is that our current "Ships by era" system does not have anything in between "modern/current" and "Cold War". If a ship decommissioned last year, she is no longer "current", but has had significant post-Cold War service. I'm not sure what to do there; perhaps another cat would be valuable (post-Cold War?), but such a cat would seem almost (but not quite) redundant compared to "current." TomTheHand 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with this topic, but I don't really like the term "Modern" for ships that are still in service. The ship built in 1980 and decommissioned yesterday is definitely a "Modern" ship. I like "Contemporary" or "Current." There's possibly a better word, but I can't think of it right now. Lou Sander 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. The term of modern has a different meaning from contemporary, current, or any other term describing being now in service. There are some ships ahead of their time, and some ships already obsolete in time of construction. Some long-decommissioned ships, like Virginia cruisers or Lira submarines, are definitely very modern, but clearly not current for a long time, while newly-built primitive small ships can be current, but not modern.

The term of current might be not exactly obvious, though generally comprehensive, so some substitute might be considered. Generally, I feel the easiest way to deal with this is to retain active ships in the existing category, renamed to Current Ships or a similar name, and create a category like Post-Cold War Ships for ships which were constructed after or shortly before the end of the Cold War (generally after 1986-1988). In bordering cases it is worth to consider individually whether the ship was designed for Cold War tasks or modern ones, with other factors considered as well. Many ships will have two categories, but the Cold War ended almost 20 years ago, and these categories are not synonymous. CP/M 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the era cats are not used to note when ships were constructed, but rather in what eras they were used, so for example USS Fletcher (DD-445) is both a WWII destroyer and a Cold War destroyer. Other than that, I agree with you: it would be a good idea to rename the current "modern" cat to "current" or similar and create a new cat, like "Post-Cold War ships", to contain ships which have seen significant service since the end of the Cold War. An example might be USS Constellation (CV-64), which decommissioned in 2003; that's significant post-Cold War service, but she is not a "current" ship. TomTheHand 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Category confusion: Category:World War II ships vs. Category:World War II naval ships

On the topic of confusing categories, it seams to me that Category:World War II ships vs. Category:World War II naval ships are either redundant, or people have not been using them correctly. While they both have similarly named sub categories (World War II naval ships of country x and World War II ships of country x), those sub categories are (generally) mutually exclusive (World War II battleships of country x will typically exist in either ships or naval ships but not both), which makes this a navigation nightmare. As an example, if you were looking for the United Kingdom's World War II ships, some (battleships, cruisers, etc.) would be in Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom, while others (destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.) are in Category:World War II ships of the United Kingdom.

Anyone have some clever ideas on how we can clean this up? --Kralizec! (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that, to avoid confusion, it would be desirable to have all naval ships in a "...Naval Ships..." category. Maybe there could be a complementary category of "...non-Naval Ships...," to include passenger ships, merchant ships, famous cable-laying ships, etc. There's a pretty clear distinction between Naval and non-Naval ships, I think.

Another possibility, maybe better, would be to call the Naval category "...Warships...," since the Wikipedia article pretty well describes what they are and discusses their differences from other ships. Lou Sander 14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between "naval ships" and "ships" is obvious only to those of us who do this all the time. Your average 'pedia reader/editor will not be familiar with it. Not sure what that means to this discussion except that perhaps Lou is right that "warship" is clearer. Jinian 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should rename "naval ships" categories to "warships." That'll make things much more clear for the average Wikipedian. TomTheHand 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ship class articles

Let's break this down a little and perhaps gain some clarity. I contend that a ship call article, like Bainbridge class destroyer properly belongs in the Category:Ship classes or Category:Destroyer classes. Instead, someone has been putting them - meaning well, I'm sure - in Category:Fooclass ships. Again, the class article is not a ship, so why put it in with the ships?

What I advocate is clearly summarized on the Project Page. All individual ships should be categorized in Category:Ships or one of its subcategories, while ship class articles should be in Category:Ship classes or one of its subcats. Discuss. Jinian 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you not put Bainbridge class destroyer under Category:Bainbridge class destroyers? It is both logical and helpful to include the class main article in the category with the individual ships. Having done so, why would you not list that category under Category:Destroyer classes? I understand what you want, but I can't understand why you think what you want is superior. Taking Category:Battleship classes as an example, the class articles and the individual ship articles are all at your fingertips with no extra searching required. You don't need to cross over to Category:Ships to read about the specific ships of a class. Doing it that way makes more information available and keeps it available in a clear and easy-to-read fashion. TomTheHand 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you not put Bainbridge class destroyer under Category:Destroyer classes? In fact, you replaced it -- with a rather snarky comment -- after removing it. Perhaps you were just correcting your mistake?

The other issue, of putting it in Category:Bainbridge class destroyers, goes more to the point as to why we have categories at all. No one would have to "cross over" since accessing any individual ship's article gives the reader easy access (typically in at least two places, the intro statement and the class box) to the class page.

As usual, I don't have a problem with such things, as long as we're consistent. Which means we create a guideline and let editors follow that. Jinian 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed Bainbridge class destroyer from Category:Destroyer classes because I had listed Category:Bainbridge class destroyers there, and the class article was under the class cat, so having the class article also remain under Destroyer classes was redundant.

I replaced it, with my snarky comment, because you had reverted it all the way back to Category:Ship classes. I'm willing to keep it in Destroyer classes until we come up with a solution, but you're not going to start putting all of the class articles I've sorted back directly under Ship classes.

Now, I honestly feel that listing the class article under the class cat, and listing the class cat under the ship type cat, is a better way of organizing the information. See Category:Battleship classes for an example.

I feel this way for two reasons. First, I think it makes more information available than your proposal, while remaining just as clear. It is no harder to find a specific class article, and it is easy to see the ships of the class at the same time.

Second, it allows me to list, for example, Category:Nagato class battleships under Battleship classes. There is no Nagato class battleship article, but this allows readers to see that there was a Nagato class and that it had two members, Nagato and Mutsu. The reader can then look at either ship article to find out a lot about the class, even without a class article. With your proposal, Nagato class battleships could not be found under Battleship classes.

I'd also like to note that I didn't pull this solution out of thin air. When I started, the ship class categories were a mishmash of class articles and class categories, and ship classes were scattered throughout the hierarchy. I looked at what was already being done, decided on which of the pre-existing solutions seemed best, and worked on implementing it fully. For all your strong opinions, you didn't do anything to get rid of the pre-existing ship class cats or move all ship class articles to the parent Ship classes cat. TomTheHand 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about putting the class articles into both the class category Category:Destroyer classes and the ship class Category:Bainbridge class destroyer? (I get to have an opinion because my opinion may make sense - whether I spend my time creating the ship articles themselves or fixing categories. Please attack my idea rather than my work.) Jinian 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea of just putting it in both. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about having both Bainbridge class destroyer and Category:Bainbridge class destroyers be under Category:Destroyer classes, I'm willing to accept that, though I'm unwilling to go back and edit articles I've already removed the cat from right now (I may take it on later). It seems redundant to me, and against Wikipedia policy on categorization, but it keeps the same amount of information available and it doesn't seem too terribly confusing.

If you mean that Category:Bainbridge class destroyers doesn't belong under Category:Destroyer classes, I have to continue to disagree. I think having that cat under the destroyer cat makes more information accessible without increasing complexity.

I didn't mean to say you don't have a right to an opinion, but it did sort of bother me that you didn't care enough to fix the previous mess but care enough to tell me that the solution I decided to support is wrong. Grabbing a solution that makes some kind of sense and applying it consistently is better than living with a charlie foxtrot for years, though you seemed content with the latter solution until now. TomTheHand 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand TomTheHand's perspective, his main goal is to bring consistency to the current navigational nightmare that is the ship class categories. Under the existing system we get a real mis-mash of articles and/or subcategories in the ship-type categories. A person not familiar with the current setup may not realize that you have to look in both the subcategory list and the article list to find a ship class. As an example, before the cleanup started, Category:Destroyer classes contained:

• the article for G and H class destroyers but not the subcategory
• the subcategory for Wicher class destroyers but not the article
• both the subcategory and the article for Arleigh Burke class destroyers

However if we standardize the category so that every ship class article (such as Mahan class destroyer) is a member of its own subcategory (Category:Mahan class destroyers), and that subcategory is a member of the ship-type category (Category:Destroyer classes), finding any ship class becomes a whole lot easier.

In an ideal world we would list both the article and subcategory in the ship-type category (such as what exists for Arleigh Burke class destroyers in the above example), but a lot of the ship classes do not have an article, subcategory, or both. From a practical sense, it would be a lot easier for us to "bring order" to the current mess by creating subcategories for each ship class, rather than trying to write articles for all the classes that do not have already have an article on them. As always, YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kralizec, what I'm actually proposing is the Wicher class destroyers scenario, in which the ship class subcategory is listed under the ship type, and the ship class article is listed under the ship class subcategory. I don't think that the ship class article should be listed in both places, because it seems redundant to me. However, it seems that you, Jinian, and Malo each feel that that would be the way to go. If that's the way to go, I'm fine with it.

I think I'd deal with it better if someone could explain to me why it's a better solution than simply listing the ship class subcategory. All I've seen so far is that Jinian feels it goes against the WikiShips policy: All individual ships should be categorized in Category:Ships or one of its subcategories, while ship class articles should be in Category:Ship classes or one of its subcats.

I disagree that my proposal goes against that guidance, and I think it has to do with the interpretation of "one of its subcats." Jinian, I think you interpret it as "Bainbridge class destroyer belongs under either Category:Ship classes or its immediate subcat, Category:Destroyer classes." I think it just means that ship class articles should be accessible in the Ship classes hierarchy. Category:Bainbridge class destroyers is a subcat of Destroyer types, which is a subcat of Ship classes, therefore putting the class article in the class cat fulfills the above guidance.

But setting the guidance aside, why would Category:Battleship classes be better if all of the ship class articles were available directly under it in addition to in ship class subcats? I think it would only be marginally more confusing. TomTheHand 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Say a Wikipedian is reading about the Wickes class destroyer, and she becomes interested in other classes. How does she get there? She might go to the List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy, but that only includes USN classes. If the article was in a proper category, she could go directly there. As you propose, her only choice would be the Category:Wickes class destroyers and it is not clear that that category would get her to other articles about classes. Even if she does try it, she's going up, up, to Category:Destroyer classes before she can come back down. This appears to fall under the guidance at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories#Reasons for duplication and is completely in line with categorization guidance. Jinian 10:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds fine to me. Are you ok with Category:Wickes class destroyers being listed under Category:Destroyer classes as well? TomTheHand 11:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. So, we'll have articles and subcategories in the Category:Fooship classes. That works for me. Thanks for the discussion and your work on cleaning this up. Jinian 12:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming

Hey guys, could you weigh in on the following category renames?

Minotaur class cruisers to Minotaur class cruisers (1909)
New Orleans class cruisers to New Orleans class cruisers (1931)
Arethusa class cruisers to Arethusa class cruisers (1913)

I thought listing them for renaming would be enough, but I just noticed that two have received no responses, and the other has received just one. TomTheHand 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your votes above, guys. I have another:

Tribal class destroyers to Tribal class destroyers (1936)

These seem really non-controversial to me, but they don't quite fall under the "speedy rename" requirements so I guess they have to go through the vote. TomTheHand 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted: Cannons in the Age of Sail

Someone asked for this in Requested Articles, and I've given it a start. The topic is amazingly badly covered right now... This is a huge (book-sized) topic area, though, and I have only a little time. All help appreciated... Georgewilliamherbert 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Victorian era ships and Category:Napoleonic era ships

The above categories are currently used to cover ships in service from 1837 to 1901 and from 1799 to 1815, respectively. I'm not sure that I agree with their use for ships outside of the UK and France, respectively. It seems ethnocentric to me. I could see Category:Napoleonic era ships being renamed to Category:Ships of the Napoleonic Wars and used to cover ships that served in the wars. I could also see Category:Victorian era ships being used just to cover ships of the UK. However, I doubt the French consider La Gloire to be a Victorian ship and most Americans wouldn't classify Monitor that way either. "Victorian era" is, in my opinion, an inappropriate classification for ships outside the UK. TomTheHand 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article "List of battleships of the Royal Navy" the ships are sequentially categorised as (1) Great Ships (2) Sail battleships (3) Steam powered ironclad battleships (4) Dreadnoughts. This seems reasonable, and could be used to apply essentially to the ships of every country, with the statement of Nationality added.--Anthony.bradbury 17:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

While that does seem to be a reasonable classification system for ships of the line and battleships, it doesn't cover other types of ships very well. TomTheHand 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Frigate issues

I'd like to sort out a couple of issues with frigates in the United States Navy. First, there are two distinctly different kinds of frigates: sailing frigates and modern frigates.

The first issue I'd like to discuss is the separation between the two. I just separated sailing frigates from Category:Frigates of the United States Navy and placed them in Category:Age of Sail naval ships of the United States. I'd like to talk a bit about if this is an appropriate name. I basically lumped all "non-modern" frigates in there, so it contains ships from 1776 to 1855. Some of them are are least part steam-powered and I think calling them "Age of Sail" is inappropriate... "Sailing frigates of the United States" might be better. Anyone have any questions, comments, problems? If not, I'll list the cat in question for rename to "Sailing frigates of the United States."

Now for the second issue. In the modern (WWII and later) sense, frigate and destroyer escort were synonymous: what the US called a destroyer escort, the RN called a frigate. In 1975, the USN renamed all of its remaining destroyer escorts to frigates. I think it would be helpful to have a single category in which to place both frigates and destroyer escorts of the USN. I've put Category:Frigates of the United States Navy up for renaming here, with the name "Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States." I'd like to put "frigates" first so it'll sort alphabetically with other countries' frigates, and I dropped "Navy" because it's implied by the fact that frigates are warships. Please give your input at the above link as to whether this rename is a good plan. TomTheHand 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I dislike Category:Age of Sail naval ships of the United States and let me count the ways. First off, I always thought it was interesting to see the sailing frigates in with the modern frigates. Shows a neat evolution of warfare. Secondly, we've covered the "naval" vs. "Navy" issue above; I still prefer Navy since naval implies Marine Corps, at least in the US. Third, tons of other ships would go in such a category, far beyond the sailing frigates. Fourth, as you noted, some of the frigates were steam frigates, with both steam and sail. All that said, I'm good with Category:Sailing frigates of the United States Navy and would insist on the "Navy" part - largely due to the fact that at least two states have had their own Navies with frigates (Texas and South Carolina) and that the Confederate Navy also had sailing frigates, and they are (at least arguably) part of the United States. But also because I don't think that "United States Navy" is redundant to "United States" - the Army has had warships as well.

On the second issue, I'm fine with "Frigates and destroyer escorts". If you like to include something on the category page explaining how the USN called them one thing and the other Navies called them another until 1975, I think that would bring additional clarity to the issue. Disagree with dropping the "Navy", however, as noted above and on the rename nom. Jinian 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that including sailing frigates with modern frigates does not show a neat evolution of warfare. Modern frigates did not evolve from sailing frigates. Instead, when there was a need for a word to describe cheap ships smaller than destroyers during WWII, the US decided on "destroyer escorts" and the Brits dusted off a word a hundred years out of use. There is no continuity; they're completely unrelated ships that don't belong in the same category. I feel pretty strongly about this.

I'm sorry about the "naval" vs. "Navy" thing, I described it poorly. I actually moved the frigates to Category:Age of Sail frigates of the United States, a subcategory of Category:Age of Sail naval ships of the United States. I don't like "Age of Sail naval ships" much at all and I'd prefer "Age of Sail warships of the United States."

I can see where you're coming from on the issue of including "Navy," but I think it's still redundant and the special cases shouldn't cause much confusion. I also think that it causes consistency problems between nations. For example, nearly every monarchy refers or referred to their navy as the "Royal Navy." For Germany, you've got the Reichsmarine, the Kriegsmarine, and the Deutsche Marine, depending on the time period. How do you deal with all this? I'm not insistent on dropping "Navy", but we've got to come up with a consistent way of naming these categories and I don't think giving the proper name of the military force they were part of is necessarily the way to go. Do we just go with "(country name) Navy"? TomTheHand 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I read over my comments just now and I think I sound more disagreeable than I meant to ;-) Just want to re-emphasize that I don't mind saying "United States Navy", but I think it's important to discuss how to consistently describe navies in general, especially difficult cases.

I do still think that sailing frigates should be separate from modern frigates, because the name is the only thing they have in common. They share no common evolution. TomTheHand 06:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they share no common evolution. Basically just because of the definition of a "frigate" taken from the OED: which historically states that frigates are a sailing warship of a size just below that of a ship of the line. Where a ship of the line in the age of sail is for the sake of argument, an equivalent to the modern day destroyer. From this definition I believe that the term frigate was re-used in order to describe the ship type in a relative way. Personally I'm not yet convinced that frigates should be divided between Age of sail and modern distinction, at least not yet. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A ship of the line was the largest, most powerful warship of the day. The World War II equivalent would be a battleship, and the term battleship evolved from ship of the line according to our article. I don't think you should assume that a destroyer, a small warship, is equivalent to a ship of the line, the largest of its day.

A ship of the line was not limited to "the largest, most powerful warship", that would be a "first rate". Ship of the line was a ship you'd put in the line of battle in a fleet engagement. Since sailing frigates were more valuable as scouts and harriers due to their speed, they were generally not placed in the line. But that's a generalization, and I'm guessing that frigates were used on the line if circumstances dictated, say for a small squadron of a third rate and mostly frigates.--J Clear 14:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out our article on frigate. Specifically, it states Modern frigates are only related to earlier frigates by name. The term "frigate" passed out of use in the mid-19th century and was readopted during World War II by the British to describe an anti-submarine escort vessel larger than a corvette but smaller than a destroyer. If you think the article is wrong, be sure to update it using reliable sources.

I placed a link on Category:Frigates of the United States Navy to the Age of Sail cat, so that someone who finds one can find the other, but they're unrelated developments and shouldn't be together. Age of Sail frigates evolved into cruisers, while modern frigates evolved from destroyers, which were developed based on the need for a small warship to destroy torpedo boats. The lines of evolution are completely separate. TomTheHand 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I buy into this evolution theory breaking the frigate heritage. Were the DE/frigates placed on the perimeter of the fleet in a fleet formation? Were the DE/frigates the most likely to be detached for independent duty. Were admirals always wishing they had one or two more because they were so useful? The British may resurrected the term soley based on relative size, but size often leads dictates the roll. If there were an equivalent threat as submarines in the age of sail, which ship was most likely to be chasing them?--J Clear 14:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another definition of an "Age of Sail" frigate was fast (or handy) enough to escape from anything bigger, heavily armed enough to beat anything smaller. I think their role followed from the design to some extent. But is that a link to a modern frigate? It seems with modern ships that we don't have a peaked curve anymore on speed vs. size. I don't think that's necessarily linked to the change over from sail. Come to think of it, the success of the American "heavy" frigates was based on changing that curve. Anyway I seem to have refuted my own point, maybe I should break this off into a new topic.--J Clear 14:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, destroyer escorts/frigates were not placed on the perimeter of the fleet in a fleet formation, nor were they likely to be detached for independent duty, etc, etc. Destroyer escorts and frigates were small, cheap ships mass produced as convoy escorts and were too slow for fleet work. TomTheHand 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've listed Category:Age of Sail frigates of the United States for renaming here. Please weigh in when you get a chance. Thanks! TomTheHand 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Update on category fixing

Ok, I've gone through Category:Aircraft carrier classes and Category:Battleship classes. I've re-added the class articles to the ship type categories per our discussions above. It still seems redundant to me, but I suppose more information is better than less. I've also gone through all the ship articles accessible through the above categories and added appropriate eras to them. I've removed eras from ship class categories per our discussion above, but some ship class articles still have eras, and that will need to be fixed in the future.

I'm planning to move on to other ship types soon, but I'm going to take a brief detour and create the Category:Unique ships structure to store all those Dreadnoughts and Enterprises out there.

I'd appreciate any input on the work done so far! Thanks for all the input up 'til now; I know I've been stubborn about the way I think things should be, but I think the categories have benefitted from having had a good debate about them. TomTheHand 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just created Category:Unique ships. I've gone through Aircraft carrier classes and moved unique carriers, then put the single-article categories up for speedy deletion (since I am the original creator). I've looked briefly at Battleship classes but haven't really dug into it. I would appreciate help in this, since it's hard to find these orphans. TomTheHand 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys think there should be a limit to the number of era categories that we assign to a ship? I mean, should New Jersey have WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Cold War cats, in addition to all of her other cats? On the one hand, I think the cats are useful, but on the other hand, that's a hell of a lot of them. TomTheHand 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd put ships in all the categories where they belong. I'm thinking that most of them would be in only one or two, but I might be wrong. The New Jersey has an unusually high number due to her long service, which is definitely a feature of her history.

I haven't given it much thought, but I'm not sure about the value of the Cold War category. Seems to me that the "Cold War" period may have encompassed Korea and Vietnam, as well as the time in between and after them. Lou Sander 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In this light, the Korea and Vietnam rather don't seem like eras. Important events, yes, but not eras that dictate ship designs. Otherwise it will be just a list of ships involved in a war. CP/M 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I agree with you: that element of the Cold War cat makes me uncomfortable. NJ did serve in the 1980s, and the Cold War cat serves to indicate that. If she didn't have that service, and was just reactivated for shore bombardment in Korea and Vietnam, I'd probably just list those two cats. I wonder if we could come up with some smaller Cold War cats... like "late Cold War", for service after Vietnam, and "early Cold War", for service before Vietnam?

CP/M, while I agree with you that Korea and Vietnam aren't really eras, and I think "Ships by era" is becoming a misnomer, I think a list of ships involved in a war has a lot of value. TomTheHand 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You've done a lot of work on categorizing ships—kudos to you. Some thoughts:

1. I'd prefer "Unique design" to "Unique"; every ship is different if you look closely enough.
2. Since it lasted so long, maybe "Cold War" should be thought of as an era, with Korean War and Vietnam War as subcats. Ships which were actually involved in those wars could be put in those categories but not in the higher-level one.
3. I have qualms about the "modern" cats, since the "Modern" era ended in the 1970s. Will we then have Postmodern ships? :-)
   How about "active" for ships in commission? By the time the post-Cold-War ones are retired we may have a better handle on the era we're living in.

—wwoods 07:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In reference to #1, I don't feel strongly either way, so if after a little bit of discussion the consensus is to rename then we can definitely nominate the articles for renaming. For #2, I don't think I agree. First, I think having Korean War and Vietnam War separate allows them to be more easily found, and someone navigating through the cats looking for Vietnam War might not immediately think it'd be under Cold War. Second, I think ships which were involved in one war or the other, but which also served outside the context of those wars (patrolling the Atlantic for Soviet subs, for example), should be recognized in the Cold War cat. For #3, I strongly agree that a rename is needed. I myself have thought that "modern" is an inappropriate word. Perhaps "Post-Cold War ships"? TomTheHand 11:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with a category like "Korean War" or "Vietnam War" is that it only applies to those countries who were combatants in that particular conflict, therefore its use is limted to those countries. I think that it would be more important to create a more general, all-embracing category before getting into the nitty-gritty of categories for individual conflicts. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think eventually we're going to have to implement categories based solely on date or something else universal. I have a feeling that might replace the current "Ships by era", and the contents of the current "Ships by era" will become "Ships by event" or something similar. TomTheHand 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think both are useful, I'm sure many readers would be looking specifically for vessels serving in a particular conflict of interest. However it is limited as there are periods of no comflict, and (again) countries not involved in specific conflict. I think both should run side-by-side, but that the era category is more urrgently in need of agreement and implimentation. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's best to have the primary classification by era (where eras are mostly universal) and additional categories for ships involved in each major conflict. CP/M 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on implementing whatever categories we come up with, but short of a "Ships by commission date" category I really don't have any good ideas for how to fix things up. We could divide the 20th century into 25 year increments, and for previous centuries have the entire century in one cat (or possibly divide the 19th century in half).
I'm happier doing gruntwork than coming up with proposals and building consensus. I'll continue to categorize like I have been, since as far as I can tell none of our current cats are bad, it's just that some require renames, and we need to add more in the future. TomTheHand 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Making unit formats consistent

I am interested in making units consistent and have edited ship articles to do that. I have created a simple tool that makes the task quicker. If you want to use it, feel free. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'units' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'll check it out when I get home. I just want to note that in some cases, rather than consistency we should aim for having the correct unit for the country. For example, Bismarck's guns are best described as 380mm, but I think Iowa's guns should be called 16" (with metric listed afterward). TomTheHand 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your system, but I'd like to speak up against listing the metric equivalents for U.S. gun sizes, especially for older guns. When a gun is universally known as a 5"/38, and when it's no longer in use, it seems sort of (I'm looking for the word) wacky (not the right word, but it'll have to do) to add the metric description. Sort of like going back to the pyramids and giving the metric equivalent of cubits (which there would be a great temptation to do, if the cubit had been a bit more specifically defined). Also, when a gun is universally known as a 40MM, and when it's no longer in use, it seems sort of whatever-it-is to give the English system equivalent. Lou Sander 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that many readers might not have a good sense of what an inch is. We do, after all, describe the measurements of the Pyramids in metric. I don't like how the Iowa article does it, 16 in (406 mm) 50 cal. Mark 7 guns, since the gun was known as the 16"/50 Mark 7, but I think it's a good idea to have a metric measurement somewhere off to the side to help people who don't know inches. TomTheHand 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Naval Guns section of List of artillery might offer some guidance. It lists everything by mm, but includes the common name. As much as it's a good thing to allow for readers who don't know about inches, it just doesn't seem right to insert a metric measurement in the middle of the well-established name of a gun, such as 16"/50 Mark 7. Maybe the (406 mm) could come first or maybe last. Or maybe something like (16"=406 mm) could be put in at the end. Or maybe there could be a link to List of artillery, if it could point to the section on Naval guns. An additional confusion factor for those not intimately familiar with English measurements or gun nomenclature is that the 50 and the 7 in the example are each dimensionless numbers with their own meaning (length of barrel in multiples of the bore, and design version, respectively). Also maybe instead of putting in the metric, there could be a link to the article on the gun itself, if there is such an article. See 5"/38 caliber gun. Lou Sander 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following system: a gun is first given full official designation, and then, if required, metric measurements. For Iowa it would be 16"/50 Mark 7 (406 mm, length 20 m). I guess most people know inch is 25.4 mm, so additional explanation of that isn't needed. This way the gun name will be displayed without changes, and for people using metric system it will be just a name. CP/M 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

CP/M, I like your suggestion. It's both concise and complete. I do have an urge to add further details to it, like (406 mm bore, 20.3 m barrel length), just for extra clarity, but there's a lot to be said for simplicity. I think I have a tendency to add detail to the point where it's confusing and a newcomer comes away with less information, not more. What do others think?

One thing I'd like to mention, though, in reference to giving the full official designation first, is that I believe the official designation for Yamato's guns was "406mm Special" or something like that, a deliberate deception (she carried 460mm guns). Is that a unique situation, and how do we want to approach it? TomTheHand 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work, CP/M! Your method does the job. I like the detailed version (406 mm bore, 20.3 m barrel length), since it contains some information about the "caliber" relationship. I don't think it's too long at all. In the case of the deceptive label on the Yamato, I think the deception is worth pointing out (just as you did above). Lou Sander 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the long description is actually better, it will fit just right on the line below. Yamato guns have a rare situation, and deserve mention, it won't take much space. CP/M 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think of the monobook tool? bobblewik 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extremely cool, but would it be better to use non-breaking spaces? TomTheHand 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Also try the 'dates' tab and see what you think. I dabbled with code for non-breaking spaces for a while but I was not happy with the performance of the code. You are more than welcome to use my old code User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js that adds non-breaking spaces, or amend my current code in whatever way you think best.

After you have tried a dozen edits of each tab, let me know what you think. I would be interested to hear your comments on how it worked for you, particularly since each editor in a different specialist domain has a different set of priorities. bobblewik 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used the two tabs some and I like them. I was hoping you could explain the reasoning behind the Date tab. I believe I'd understand how to use it better if you tell me what you want it to accomplish.

I'm using the units_nbsp tab instead of the units tab because the Manual of Style states that non-breaking spaces should be used with units. I don't see changing "20mm" to "20 mm" with a normal space as an improvement, since neither are in accordance with the manual of style.

I know that you prefer a normal space and aren't updating the nbsp code as much, but I wanted to request the addition of nbsp functionality for inches. For example, for USS Fletcher (DD-445)'s length, 376 ft 3 in, your code will put a nbsp before ft but not before in. If you don't plan to make any more updates to the nbsp code, I understand.

Also, I'm not quite sure how to approach this, but I think it would be helpful if the unit formatter could do something about " used to represent inches. For an example, see USS Abel P. Upshur (DD-193)'s armament. It may be better to change 4 4" (102 mm) and 1 3" (76 mm) guns, 12 21" (533 mm) torpedo tubes to read 4 4 in (102 mm) and 1 3 in (76 mm) guns, 12 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes. What do you think? TomTheHand 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about what I just said about changing " to in or inch. There are some cases where I would want to retain the ", like when it's the most commonly used name of a specific gun (16"/50 and 5"/38 come to mind), but if the gun type is not specified and only a caliber is noted (like the above destroyer) I would want to expand it out. I imagine it would not be easy/possible to code this. TomTheHand 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again assuming you're willing to update the nbsp code, it would be helpful if it would insert nbsp for knots and feet (spelled out), like in "30 knots" and "16 feet". Also, adding nbsp to figures for nautical miles would be helpful (nm and nmi). TomTheHand 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You make several comments:

• The 'dates' tab: It removes links to solitary years, solitary months and solitary days because in most cases these are excessive. Many of these are only there because of a misunderstanding of the date preference mechanism (which only works with *full* dates). It does not remove links from full dates, see Ashley Ballard for an example of what it does for solitary months, solitary years and full dates. Many ship articles have excessive year links.
• You are mistaken if you think that the normal space is not in accordance with the manual of style. The manual of style says The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". and the official SI website says 'a space is always used to separate the unit from the number'. That convention actually comes from ISO 31 'Numerical value and unit symbol are separated by a space.'
• Updating the code to correct the missing nbsp for inches in '376 ft 3 in'. I have updated the code in several respects, try it again on USS Fletcher (DD-445).
• Updating the code to increase the occasions where it changes the double quote character (") into 'in'. I certainly would like the code to go further than it does. Unfortunately, this is more difficult than it seems. There are many cases where the double quote is used for things other than inches. It can mean seconds of time or seconds of angle. It can also be a speech quote, of course. It is also used within software. I took some effort to avoid false positives like that but it still requires the human editor as a final check.
• Updating the code for knots, feet, nm, nmi. I have done that for you. Perhaps you would like to make your own copy of the code, then you can update it any way you want. Hope that helps. bobblewik 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the updates. I will look at the code myself and see about modifying it in the future. In reference to the normal space issue, the Manual of Style states Use   for the space (25 kg) to ensure that it does not break lines. I'm certainly not arguing that there shouldn't be a space between the number and the unit, and I understand the SI conventions, but the Wikipedia Manual of Style explicitly states that that space should be non-breaking. TomTheHand 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried the code on USS Fletcher again, and it still does not insert nbsp for inches. TomTheHand 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is odd. I tried the code on USS Fletcher (DD-445). For me, it turned '376 ft 3 in' into 376 ft 3 in and '39 ft 8 in' into 39 ft 8 in. Can you try once more on that article please? bobblewik 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, it works now. Perhaps it was a browser cache issue before. Thanks! TomTheHand 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Displacement/Tonnage

The suggested template for ships has a field for displacement. This template has been used for passenger ships as well. Contributors who are unaware of the difference between tonnage and displacement often incorrectly insert tonnage here, an error which gets repeated on all the sites which mirror Wikipedia. I've made many corrections of these errors but the use of the naval template (which has no tonnage field) may contribute to their recurrence. Would it make sense to have separate fields for tonnage (or gross tonnage) and displacement? Although displacement figures for merchant ships can be hard to find, sometimes both measures are available, and there are some vessels which have been both naval vessels and merchant ships (e.g., SS America/USS West Point) for which both figures are readily available. Kablammo 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A good question. However, as you say, displacement figures for merchant vessels are hard to find, and tonnage figures for military vessels would be meaningless, so I'm not sure that having both figures on the template would be a good idea. You're generally going to have one or the other, and cases where both are available will be the exception rather than the rule. I wonder if having a merchant template with gross tonnage instead of displacement would be the way to go, and in rare cases when both figures are available they can both be listed in that special case. TomTheHand 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes sense (especially for passenger ships- some categories of cargo vessels may require other variations). And the use of gross tonnage rather than tonnage should reduce the incidence of confusion. Kablammo 14:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maritime military history

Hello! I have taken the initiative to explore the possibilites of starting a Maritime military history task force under the Military history project. Are there any thoughts, objections, suggestions from the participants in this ship project. As it will be a combination of both project areas I suggest a collaboration :) A talk has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Maritime_military_history_task_force. Inge 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Maritime warfare task force has been created :) Participants are wanted. Inge 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ships by Country

I'm still working on categorization. Aircraft carriers and battleships have proper era cats now, but for some reason I skipped cruisers and went straight to destroyers. It's disheartening. I've been working on it for days and I'm only down to F (specifically, Category:Fletcher class destroyers... OUCH!).

Anyway, I wanted to ask about Category:Ships by country. Of course it's a mess, and I'd like to try to fix the whole structure up. However, that's a ways down the road. For right now, I'd like to start adding Ships by country categories. My question is, should these categories go on individual ship articles or on ship class categories? It's currently being done both ways. I'm listing some pros and cons below; please add to it if you want!

Reasons to list individual ship articles:

• Ease of finding a specific ship if you don't know much about it. I may know USS Heerman is a destroyer, but what class? If every American destroyer article is listed under Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy I only need to know the ship's name.

Reasons NOT to list individual ship articles:

• Overwhelmingly large cats. The USN has had over 1000 destroyers (combining DDs and DDGs).
• Overwhelming amount of work. I don't want to add country cats to every article!

Reasons to list ship class categories:

• Neatness. A list of every destroyer class is much easier to look through and much easier on the eyes than a list of every destroyer.

Reasons NOT to list ship class categories:

• Not all ships of a class always belonged to the same navy. For example, Category:Bogue class aircraft carriers were built by the USN with the intention of giving most to the RN. However, the RN referred to their Bogues by a different class name, so we might be ok listing the Bogue class under USN and the Attacker sub-class under the RN.

To be perfectly honest, I think it might be a good idea to do both. It will be a ridiculous, overwhelming amount of work, but if it's done slowly as we improve articles it won't be unmanageable. I think doing both combines the advantages and mitigates the disadvantages of both. I don't feel that it's redundant, as I felt about the Ship classes issue above, because you're listing different information: the categories listed are for classes, the articles are for specific ships. In the case of ships that were sold/given to another Navy, like USS Mississippi (BB-23) to Greece, we would list the class cat under USN but the ship article under both the USN and the Hellenic Navy.

What do you guys think? I'd like to start implementing a plan before too long, though I know Jinian hates it when I want to move fast. The more ship articles I categorize before a decision is made, the more backtracking I'll have to do later. TomTheHand 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized, I really ought to try to write some sort of a tool to automate or streamline this whole process. I'm a programmer, after all :-P I have no experience in web programming, but I'll try to learn. TomTheHand 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at AWB and I think it may make my life much easier. I feel like an idiot for going so long without a tool's help. TomTheHand 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Does nobody have an opinion on this? I'd rather not start doing something so massive without a second opinion. Even if it's "do whatever you want, Tom," please speak up! ;-) TomTheHand 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to proceed with this plan. It's been ten days. I'll be adding a Ships by Country category to every ship article I touch from now on, starting with the Category:Forrest Sherman class destroyers. The class category and every ship in the class will receive a Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy. TomTheHand 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about ships designed and built in one country for use in another country? That includes all warships built for export and not used by the builder country. Will they be listed under both countries or only under the final user country. --Victor12 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will list ships that were designed and built in one country for use by another country under the country that used them. Ships that were built and used by one country for a while, then sold to another, will be listed under both. The class category will be listed under the initial user of the ships, so Category:Fletcher class destroyers is listed under only United States Navy, even though a bunch were sold to other navies eventually. If a class of ships is built by one country for the purpose of selling them to another, it will be listed under the user's category. For example, Category:Kongo class destroyers will be listed under Japan even though they were (I think) built in the US. TomTheHand 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems the right choice. Good luck with all the hard work!!! --Victor12 20:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I'm not sure if members of this project would be interested in Valiant Shield? Johntex\^talk 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RFS Kuznetsov

Hey mates, we have a slight problem here. I was originally under the impression that the only article on the Russian aircraft cruiser RFS Admiral Kuznetsov was titled Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier. However, during the course of my daily browsing, I came across a much more expansive article on the same ships titled Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. I brought this up with some of the other guys at the Military History WikiProject, and they suggested that I talk to you guys about it. Which should stay, and which should go? And, for future reference, which title more closely follows your guidelines? Thanks for your time and help! (USMA2010 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

• It is my understanding that the first article you mentioned is an article about the class of aircraft carriers, of which of the Kuznetsov is the lead ship and basically only ship. The 2nd article is specifically about the Kuznetsov as a ship. Your additons about the air wing of the Kuznetsov would be better in the article about the Kuznetsov itself, not the Kuznetsov class. I understand how you could make such a mistake, as both articles seem to be very similar. --Spot87 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier is about the class in general. Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov is about the specific ship, Kuznetsov. Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag is about the other ship in the class, which was sold to China incomplete. All of the articles should stay, none should go, and all follow our guidelines. Spot87 is correct that details about Kuznetsov's air wing should go in Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov rather than Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier. TomTheHand 03:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank's for the input. As the other section includes a description of the air wing of the Kuznetsov, I'll remove that section. (USMA2010 07:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Going off on a tangent, should we consider moving ships from "Soviet TYPE NAME" to "Russian TYPE NAME"? For instance, the Kuznetsov was launched in 1985, commissioned in 1991, and "fully operational" in 1995. Even counting from launching, she's already spent more time in the Russian Navy than the Soviet one.

Oh, and good luck, Cadet Bjorum-Docksey.

—wwoods 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you. (USMA2010 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

CFD discussion

Hi, guys. There's currently a proposal up at Categories for Deletion to merge Category:Indian Navy ships into Category:Naval ships of India. Your input would be appreciated. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Indian Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of India. Thanks! - EurekaLott 06:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Confederate States Navy

I'm starting to try and organize ships that were in the CSN. I've created these templates so far... Any suggestions/recommendations? This is my first attempt at this sort of thing :-) Here's what I have so far:

• Template:CSN Steamers
• Template:CSN Armed Tugboats
• Template:CSN Sloops
• Template:CSN Ironclads

-plange 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say good job; I think our Civil War coverage could use a boost. Second, the ship types should not be capitalized. "CSN Steamers" should be "CSN steamers". Third, it might be a good idea to expand CSN out. Say, "Steamers of the Confederate States Navy." I'm not 100% sure about the last; I am 100% sure about the second (lowercase the ship type). Thanks for joining! TomTheHand 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, will do! Since I've already created them, how to I lowercase the Template name? I've now added:

• Template:CSN Cruisers
• Template:CSN Gunboats

-plange 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To lowercase the name, go to the template's page and click "move" at the top of the screen (it's between history and watch/unwatch). Then retype the name with the ship type in lowercase. It's probably a good idea to put a reason, even if you don't usually write edit summaries: "ship type in lowercase" is fine. TomTheHand 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Is there a template for Talk pages that identify the article as being a part of this project? -plange 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

do we have one? I can try and make one if we need one...-plange 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. This would have helped me find the project more easily today when I ran into this. --Stephane Charette 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I only found out about it because I'm on the Military history Project and when they added the maritime warfare task force they listed this as a Sister project. I just made one for a different project, complete with the WP:1.0 quality and importance scale, do you want me to take a stab? If so, are you wanting me to include the scales? This would only make sense to include if you guys are planning to implement this...plange 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

British steamer found

Found mention of a British steamer in this article John Newland Maffitt (1819-1886)#Later Life called the Widgeon but when I went to redlink it, it brought me to the bird. What should I do? I thought I should make it a redlink by doing a disambiguation, i.e. Widgeon but I didn't know the naming convention for British steamers, or if this is even important enough to redlink? -plange 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A year would be conventional: [[Widgeon (18??)|''Widgeon'']]. The year she was launched if known, or if not, then purchased or commissioned or some other equivalent of a birthdate. But unless you've reason to think there's something notable about the ship, I suggest simply leaving it unlinked, as Widgeon.

—wwoods 06:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the non-notable thoughts on this one. Most merchant ships live uneventful lives - like most of us. Jinian 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yep, until they get captured by some commerce raider :-) I had gone ahead and delinked it... -plange 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Ships by Country

After doing the Forrest Sherman class destroyers I feel like I've run into a problem. I added the Forrest Shermans to Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy. That's not so much a country cat as a Navy cat. There is no Category:Destroyers of the United States.

Now, that doesn't look like a problem, but here's where the issue comes in: In some cases, navies change names. For example, the navy of Germany was called the Kriegsmarine for World War II only. That makes a theoretical Category:Battleships of the Kriegsmarine exactly equivalent to the era cat Category:World War II battleships of Germany, which isn't helpful. I think it would be helpful, in the Category:Ships by country structure, to be able to find all ships of Germany and not have to decide between the Kaiserliche Marine, the Kriegsmarine and the Deutsche Marine. It's called Ships by country, after all. However, in the past whenever I've wanted to change ship categories to be by country instead of by navy I've run into a lot of resistance.

Guys, we really need to talk about this. How can we make the Ships by country structure useful? It's a mess right now, with stuff like Category:Naval ships of Chile and Category:Chilean Navy ships having no overlapping content even though Chile has only had one navy. I realize that "Naval ships of (country)" and "(Country's navy) ships" are not identical in meaning. However, we're talking about Ships by country here. I think we should have one master cat, like Category:Warships of (country), with subcats for different navies where necessary.

Here's my proposal. Category:Warships of the United States will be a master cat, and will contain subcategories for types of ships (destroyers, sailing frigates, ironclads, etc). Those subcategories will be divided where necessary: Ironclads of the USN and Ironclads of the CSN, for example. However, Category:Battleships of the United States will not need subcats for different navies, because all US battleships have been in the USN. This will work well across different navies as well. In the case of Germany, there will be no need for navy subcats because it's been one navy, changing names, rather than two navies existing at the same time. If you only want to see Kriegsmarine ships, you've got Category:World War II naval ships of Germany for that.

If you don't like this, please come up with a decent proposal in response which will clean up Category:Ships by country and make it usable. It is an absolute mess now, and something must be done. TomTheHand 21:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Germany, there will be no need for navy subcats because it's been one navy, changing names, rather than two navies existing at the same time. What about NVA (eg east german) ships? --Victor12 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Very true; I stand corrected. In those cases, we will do the same as for ironclads of the United States. We'll have subcategories for each navy, in those specific cases, but Category:Battleships of Germany will not need to be divided. TomTheHand 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your proposal, mainly because I think era type categories are vague and do not fit to every navy, thus I think ships of x Navy is a better way of categorization. As for era categories, they are correctly applied only in the cases of major naval powers (USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Russia), but they are not as useful for other lesser navies. For instance what sense does it make to have a WWII ships category for Latin American navies or a Cold War ships category for African navies? They don't reflect meaningful development stages for those forces. Furthermore as ships in this navies tend to be few (and those with articles on Wikipedia are even fewer) and have long service lifes you end up with more categories than vessels to categorize --Victor12 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you disagree with. I want to avoid categorization by navy where possible, and instead I want to use categorization by country. I'm not trying to eliminate categorization by navy and replace it with categorization by era. To use Chile as an example, I would like to have all Chilean warships under Category:Warships of Chile rather than split between Category:Naval ships of Chile and Category:Chilean Navy ships. TomTheHand 22:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not merge them under Chilean Navy Ships? That way you can include auxiliaries and other non-combatants. --Victor12 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of the problems I detailed above. The category is intended to go under Category:Ships by country. If it is named after the navy, it causes problems when navies change names. I'd be open to merging into Naval ships of Chile to include auxiliaries, but I want to eliminate categorization by navy because it makes Ships by country almost useless. TomTheHand 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And that would be categorized under Chilean Navy??? --Victor12 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No. There would be no Category:Chilean Navy ships category. The stuff that's spread across Chilean Navy ships and Naval ships of Chile would all be merged into Naval ships of Chile, which would be found under Ships of Chile, which would be found under Ships by country. TomTheHand 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but there is a Chilean Navy category (or at least there should be one), would your Naval ships of Chile category be still under the Chilean Navy category or outside it? --Victor12 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OH! I see what you're saying. Well... I would guess that Naval ships of Chile should go under the Chilean Navy cat, as well as under Ships of Chile. TomTheHand 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to put my proposal in table form. Please look at it here: Ship category proposal TomTheHand 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any input on this? Victor12, what do you think about categorizing Naval ships of Chile under Chilean Navy as well as Ships of Chile? Or would you prefer Chilean Navy ships?

I'm sorry for being so annoying about this, but fixing the Ships by country cat is going to require a ton of category moves no matter what plan we go with. As a result, I need support before I begin, because we'll need to vote on the renames. If you're willing to support my proposal, please let me know. If not, what changes would need to be made to get your support? If about three people support the proposal and would be willing to vote on cat moves, I'll feel confident in starting. TomTheHand 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer Chilean navy ships, that way it will be more congruent to have it under the Chilean Navy category. As for Naval Ships of Chile and the whole country caegories mess you could just make Chilean Navy Ships a subcategory of Naval Ships of Chile. That's what I have done for Peruvian Navy Ships. Check Category:Peruvian Navy ships. --Victor12 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably silly to have Chilean Navy ships be the sole subcategory of Naval ships of Chile and so I'd prefer to get rid of one or the other. I'm fine with getting rid of Naval ships of Chile and simply have Chilean Navy ships be listed under Ships of Chile.

However, that leads to the problem I have with listing things by navy. What do we do about the Kaiserliche Marine, Reichsmarine, and Kriegsmarine? Do we just say "German Navy", which isn't really correct? Do we have them separate? It's essentially one organization that went through several name changes. TomTheHand 19:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So maybe it's not so silly to have Naval Ships of ... and ...Navy ships after all. Specially since it's not always the same organization. That's the case, for instance of the NVA navy in the case of Germany. I'd rather have Naval ships of Germany and under that Kaiserliche Marine ships, NVA navy ships, and such. --Victor12 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, Victor12. Could you explain how you want the categories to be laid out? What should be under what? I agree that the West German and East German navies should be in separate categories, since they are separate entities, but the Kaiserliche Marine, Reichsmarine, and Kriegsmarine were essentially one entity undergoing name changes and should be in one category. TomTheHand 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

*German naval Ships

** Hanseatic League ships

** Kaiserliche Marine ships

** Reichsmarine ships

** Kriegsmarine ships

** Bundesmarine ships

** Volksmarine ships

and such... --Victor12 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think such a separation would be better accomplished through the "Ships by era" category, and the "Ships by country" structure would be better suited to helping people who simply want to find German ships. I think the above separation reduces the value of both Ships by country and Ships by era. TomTheHand 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be Naval Ships of (Insert Country Here), as opposed to (Insert Country Here)-an Navy Ships. The first way is very simple and clear. There is no room for debate as to a proper name for each. In the big picture, they both convey the same infomation, but Naval ships of will end up being an easier conversion and avoid un-needed "disagreements". --Spot87 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume that the proposal has been accepted and can be started put into pratice? --Spot87 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish ;-) I don't think Victor12 agrees with the proposal. I think he'd rather have a "(Country's navy) ships" subcategory of every "Naval ships of (country)" cat. Jinian seems to generally agree with the proposal, though I asked him for some clarification to be sure. You and I are for it. There hasn't been any other input. TomTheHand 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I still oppose the move, mainly because it implies a greater reliance of ships by era categories which are quite problematic in my opinion. However either way we go it'll be much better than the current status quo. What we need is more opinions on the matter. What about the rest of members of this Wikiproject? --Victor12 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Victor12, I think I just realized why you oppose the proposal. My proposal page is unclear. I want to have eras, classes, and ship articles all directly underneath (ship type) of (country). I'm not trying to have a hierarchy of (ship type) -> (era) -> (class) -> (specific ship). Instead, I think that once you get down to (ship type) of (country), you should be able to see eras, classes, and specific ships all at once. I could do a small category as a trial so you could see what I'm talking about, if it would help.

I believe Jinian brought up the same issue, and the problem is just that I had trouble communicating my proposal. I didn't know how to illustrate it to properly show what I wanted.

How does it sound now? TomTheHand 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds better, but still you would have ship articles repeated over several categories, wouldn't you? For instance under Naval ships of, but also under X era ships of, X class ships of, X type of ships of, etc. Wouldn't that be a little redundant? --Victor12 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I assume that it would be alright for me to start implementing this? (Ship type) of (country) will not be subdivided into eras, it will just contain links to eras. It will still contain all the (ship types) of (country). I'll start today if nobody has any protests. TomTheHand 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should start with a small category, as you proposed. --Victor12 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will do a small category and then come back and solicit comments. TomTheHand 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a small trial category. Please look at Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom and let me know what you think. It was created from scratch, so if it needs to be, it can be deleted by robots to set things back to how they were. Contrast with Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers, which was not created with any single coherent plan. TomTheHand 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You;'ve got duplication - all the Invincibles already exist under Invincible class battlecruisers, so they don't need a separate listing under "Bat..of Un..dom" GraemeLeggett 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Intentional, to allow someone to see both the assorted classes of battlecruisers and the individual battlecruisers. They're not intermingled (classes are cats, ships are articles) so I think it's reasonably easy to read. I believe it's a good thing, and more useful than the duplication on the ship class pages (ex. Category:Battleship classes) which was implemented according to consensus. TomTheHand 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the trial category that was done, I agree that this is the best solution to the problem. The way that it is set up is very clear and gives the reader the best way at looking at the infomation. I would support the immediate adoption of this proposal. There are some naming issues in regards to countries, but those will appear in every situation anyway. --Spot87 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just realized another problem that will need to be addressed: changing country names! How would we address the England -> Great Britain -> United Kingdom issue? I would probably universally use (ship type) of the United Kingdom category names, and in specific instances include a note at the top of the page stating that this category contains ships of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and/or England. In the case of Germany, I would probably only use "Germany" for the navy since 1871 and refer to earlier ships by the specific state/power to which they belonged. Overall, problems with this should be rare, as we'll have many more modern ship articles than ancient ones. TomTheHand 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll still have that split at 1925 so some well known RN ships will appear in both, it would be easier to list the three nations in the cat header as "da da da..ships of the United Kingdom (Kingdom of GB, GB and I, GB and NI) 1707 to present" GraemeLeggett 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that might be what I was trying to say... use "ships of the United Kingdom" all the time, and include something in the cat header specifying that it includes GB, etc as well. TomTheHand 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the sample cat, I agree with the proposal, it's quite clear and straightforward. The duplication of ships under two cats (naval ships of... and under their own class) makes it easier for user to find ships by name when they don't know the class. I think this proposal should be implemented across the board. --Victor12 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok! I've put Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers up for deletion here. Please vote on it if you support this proposal; we've got to get some momentum going to make this reorg happen. I will be applying this organization scheme in the future to ship articles that I touch, and I will also be proposing a lot of deletions, renames, and merges. I will post about them here. Please vote in them! TomTheHand 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I also put Category:Royal Navy destroyers up for merge into Category:Destroyers of the United Kingdom here. Please vote in that one as well. I don't plan to do mass deletions/renamings, but I will do a couple at a time. TomTheHand 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on this proposed merge as well as the above deletion! TomTheHand 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• This might not be the best place to mention it, but. I saw a CFD discussion today at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_10#Category:Modern_destroyers and came to this page to check out views, leaving a comment above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Eras_for_Ships. --Mereda 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads-up. Without a CFD tag on the category I would never have noticed the vote. I responded to your comment above. TomTheHand 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Happy to help. Your work here looks really good. I've commented again above on the modern thing. --Mereda 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)